ingest_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the potentially surprising default that omitted action ids are approved, indicates that the tool creates/updates data, and describes the return value. It doesn't cover failure modes or reversibility, but the key side-effect behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 deliver all essential information: role, workflow position, approval semantics, and return value. There is no filler, and the description is front-loaded with the most important context.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input provenance, the approval semantics, side effects, and result summary. Minor gaps around failure behavior and atomicity prevent a 5, but an agent has enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents both planId and approvals, including the omission-default behavior. The description reinforces that behavior but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a concrete verb ('commits') and resource ('a plan returned by ingest_plan'), and positions itself as step 2 of 2 in the conversational ingest flow. This directly distinguishes it from ingest_plan and other ingest-related siblings.

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?

It clearly signals sequencing: this is step 2, it acts on a plan produced by ingest_plan, and it commits only the user-approved subset. It does not explicitly list exclusions like 'use ingest_plan when creating a plan', but the workflow context is clear enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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