mindgap_ingest

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

Discloses key behaviors: atomic validation (rejecting entire payload if any edge endpoint is invalid) and return of persisted rows for verification. No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden, and it does so well.

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 that are concise and front-loaded with the most important identity ('Validated batch write (workhorse)'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return value (persisted rows) and validation behavior. It covers key aspects for a batch write tool, though more details on parameter constraints would improve completeness.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. Description only mentions 'nodes' and 'edges' generically, with no details on fields like created_by, id, etc. No compensation for the lack of schema 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?

Clearly states it performs a validated batch write that upserts nodes and adds edges in one transaction. Distinguished from siblings like mindgap_add_node (single node) and mindgap_link (single edge) by being a batch 'workhorse'.

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?

Implicitly indicates it's the primary tool for batch operations ('workhorse'), but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude cases. Clear context but lacks direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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