vmn_ingest_file

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: cursor-based deduplication, repeated-call safety, and that only new lines are stored. While it does not cover error handling or partial-failure behavior, the most important side-effect profile is transparent.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and mechanism; the second adds the key safety guarantee. Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious operational knowledge: incremental ingestion, cursor state, and repeatability. It could elaborate on what happens if the file changes in place or on mid-ingest failures, but the definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: file_path, namespace, session_id, title, and tags are all explained. The description reinforces the cursor concept and the session_id role, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Ingest new content from a file'), the resource ('into the vault'), and the distinctive mechanism ('tracking progress with a cursor so only new lines are ingested'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'vmn_ingest', which is presumably for non-file content, without needing to open the schema.

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 conveys the exact usage context: repeated calls are safe and only the delta since the last call is stored. This gives clear guidance for incremental file ingestion scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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