docs_ingest_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the key trait 'without saving to disk', which is beyond the name, but it does not disclose side effects on existing indexed content (e.g., whether the same key overwrites or fails). For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, so a mid score is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and a critical constraint. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover key behaviors. It covers the primary action and the no-disk aspect, but does not clarify behavior on duplicate keys or domain existence. Sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete for complex usage.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% schema coverage). The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Ingest'), resource ('raw text content into a domain documentation index'), and a key qualifier ('without saving to disk'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool docs_ingest, which likely handles file-based ingestion.

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 provides clear context: use this for raw text content and when not saving to disk. It implicitly distinguishes from docs_ingest, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. Still, the constraints are clear enough for basic selection.

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