athena_ingest_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the primary effect (persist and assign coordinates) but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or error cases. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a write operation.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes specific detail about the coordinate assignment. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain all parameters, provide usage context, or describe return values. For an agent to invoke it correctly, additional information would be needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It indirectly clarifies 'oid' and 'expected_vid' via the coordinate system, but leaves 'text', 'actor', 'carrier', and 'native_locator' unexplained. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with no other parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Persist a text manifestation') and a distinctive outcome ('assign exact KC144/OID/VID/MID/paragraph/sentence/token/character coordinates to every non-whitespace lexeme'). This distinguishes it from generic persist tools like athena_register or athena_hydrate by emphasizing the coordinate-assignment function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions to the agent.

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