ingest_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explicitly stating side effects: saving raw text, running an LLM compile that creates/updates pages, applying cross-linking, and returning a change summary. It does not mention costs, delays, or reversibility, but the core mutation 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?

One focused sentence with the main action first, followed by the key processing steps and return value. Every clause contributes meaning; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what the input represents, what processing happens, and what the agent should expect in response. It could be more explicit about alternatives, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 coverage is 67%: title and source_url already have descriptions. The description's phrase 'raw text' adds partial meaning to the undocumented text parameter, clarifying it is the source content to ingest. However, it does not fully compensate for the absence of a text schema description or explain any formatting/size constraints.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Ingest a new source into the wiki') and enumerates concrete effects: saves raw text, runs LLM compile, applies cross-linking, returns summary. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ingest_plan or ingest_execute, but the action is clear enough that an agent can identify what it does.

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 implies the tool is for adding new source material to the wiki and processing it into pages, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as quick_capture, save_chat_excerpt, or ingest_plan. There is no when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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