cuemap_ingest_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — 'optionally crawling same-domain links' — which reveals recursive behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects such as persistent writes to project knowledge state, prerequisites, or the time/cost implications of deep crawls.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded ('Explicitly ingest content from a URL') and the usage gate follows immediately. Every clause earns its place, and 'Explicitly' usefully signals that this is a deliberate, user-triggered action rather than an automatic side effect.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the optional crawl behavior, and the trigger condition, but omits what the agent should expect after invoking it — such as whether ingested content is persisted into the active project, whether a project must be loaded first, or warnings about slow deep-crawl runs. Adequate but with clear operational gaps.

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 75%, and the depth, project, and same_domain_only parameters are already well-described in the schema itself; the url parameter is self-evident from the tool's purpose. The phrase 'crawling same-domain links' faintly reinforces the depth/same_domain_only semantics but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Explicitly ingest content from a URL.' The URL source clearly differentiates this tool from its ingest siblings (cuemap_ingest_content, cuemap_ingest_file), though it does so implicitly by naming the resource rather than explicitly naming the alternatives.

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 second sentence provides an explicit usage gate: 'Use only when the user asks to ingest that URL.' This gives a clear when-condition but stops short of a 5 because it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between this and the other ingest tools.

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