vmn_ingest

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 reveal the mutation nature (ingestion into a vault), the local scope, and the return contract (a SHA-256 shard hash), which is useful beyond the schema. However, it is silent on duplicate handling, idempotency, error behavior, or what a 'shard' entails, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action and target, and the second delivers the essential return-value contract. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 output schema and no annotations, explicitly stating the return type is a meaningful step. However, given a shard-based architecture and ten siblings, the description doesn't explain how the returned hash is consumed downstream (e.g., by vmn_inspect or vmn_recall) or how text ingestion differs from file ingestion in practice, leaving notable context gaps for an agent exploring the vault toolset.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only reiterates that 'text' is what gets ingested and adds no meaning about how tags, namespace, or content_type interact with sharding or retrieval. It provides no value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action and resource — ingesting text into the local Vanguard Memory Vault — which clearly conveys what the tool does. The word 'text' implicitly distinguishes it from its sibling vmn_ingest_file, but the differentiation is not explicit, so it stops short of the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its ten siblings. It neither states when text ingestion is appropriate nor contrasts with vmn_ingest_file or the retrieval-oriented tools like vmn_recall and vmn_search. An agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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