cuemap_ingest_content

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent the operation persists content, but it does not disclose side effects such as chunking, embedding, deterministic replacement via source_key, default project behavior, or whether repeated ingestion is idempotent. For a write-oriented tool this is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for an opening summary, but it is also very terse given the complexity of the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic trigger. It omits guidance on how raw content is processed, how source_key influences replacement, when to provide structural_cues, and what happens after ingestion. An agent would be unable to make informed decisions about most optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 42%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It restates the content input but says nothing about segmenter choices, segment window sizes, metadata shape, structural_cues, or source_key semantics. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('ingest'), a specific resource ('supplied raw content' into CueMap), and a precise trigger ('when the user asks to persist'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cuemap_ingest_url and cuemap_ingest_file by emphasizing raw content rather than URL/file input.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use only when the user asks to persist that content.' This is an effective gate that prevents casual or speculative invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when to prefer cuemap_add versus this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.