ingest

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

Annotations already identify the tool as idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it states that only incremental change proposals are created and that the live graph remains unchanged until commit. This explains the operational behavior and the staging aspect, which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and scope, and the second sentence clarifies the critical behavioral constraint about the live graph. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that the tool has a parameter count of 2 with one required, and neither parameter is documented in the description, the agent cannot determine what to pass for 'chapter' or how 'mode' alters behavior. Even though an output schema exists, the lack of parameter explanation leaves the tool incomplete for practical invocation. The behavioral note helps, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of sibling differentiation make the overall context insufficient.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of the 'mode' (extract/reindex) or 'chapter' parameters. It does not explain what these parameters mean, what values are valid, or how they affect the operation. Since the schema itself provides only names and enums without descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for filling 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 states a specific action: validating the hash, UTF-8 byte span, and Scene division of the manuscript and manifest, then creating incremental change proposals. It clearly distinguishes the tool from pure read operations by noting it creates proposals, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'propose' tool, which may also generate proposals. The purpose is clear and specific, but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 note 'live 그래프는 commit 전까지 바뀌지 않습니다' (live graph does not change until commit) implies this is a pre-commit validation and proposal step, providing context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name any alternative tools, such as 'check' or 'commit'. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit routing to siblings.

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