Add documents to the knowledge graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by disclosing that indexing is a graph-extraction pass with a time cost (minute per chunk), that the corpus remains partially queryable during the process, and that re-submission of identical content is a no-op due to hash de-duplication. These are critical behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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?

The description is concise, with three sentences that each carry weight: the purpose, the cost/behavior, and the de-duplication effect. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds critical behavioral details, with no extraneous information.

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's complexity (graph extraction, performance implications), the absence of annotations, and a schema with little description, the description is quite complete. It covers the operational cost, eventual consistency, and idempotency. A minor gap is the lack of explicit handling for 'file_sources', but the core functionality is well covered.

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 compensate. It does add significant context: it explains that 'texts' are the content to be indexed and that identical content is de-duplicated. However, it does not describe the 'file_sources' parameter, which is optional but appears in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema, but not complete coverage of both parameters.

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 tool's function: inserting text documents into the LightRAG indexTm. It specifies the resource (LightRAG index) and the action (insert/ingest). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docs_query and docs_stats, though those are clearly for retrieval and stats, so the purpose is clear enough.

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 usage by describing the indexing process and its cost, which indirectly suggests when to use it (when you need to add documents) and what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It could be more explicit about the trade-offs versus other operations.

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