ingest_document

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states it converts and indexes but does not disclose side effects such as whether the original document is modified, how indexing affects existing chunks, or the meaning of the 'force' parameter. No mention of reversibility, permissions, or what happens on re-ingestion. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key differentiator ('Convert one DOCS document'). No wasted words; efficient and immediately comprehensible.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered, but the description lacks detail on the 'force' parameter, prerequisites (e.g., document existence), and the practical implications of indexing. The description is too minimal to fully guide correct invocation, especially for a tool with multiple steps and a boolean option.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly identifies document_name as the document to convert, but it omits any explanation of the 'force' parameter. The description does not clarify what forcing does (e.g., overwrite existing index, skip cache), leaving an undocumented required-optional parameter.

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 a specific action (convert to Markdown) on a specific resource (one DOCS document), with additional detail (using Marker, indexing structural chunks). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_documents, ingest_all_documents (multiple), and search_documents or read_markdown_section, which have different purposes.

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 phrase 'one DOCS document' implicitly signals this tool is for single-document ingestion, contrasting with 'ingest_all_documents.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other use cases, leaving some guidance to inference. Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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