ingest_code_map

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context: validation happens before storage and the write is transactional. However, it doesn't say what 'source-free' means, what a validation failure looks like, or what happens to an existing code map for the same project.

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 efficient sentence front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though the density means details like 'source-free' go unexplained.

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?

For a mutation tool that stores a nested-object payload with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives no insight into required payload structure, validation error behavior, or whether ingestion replaces or merges an existing map.

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 coverage is 0% and the two parameters (project_id and a nested code_map object) are entirely undocumented. The description doesn't clarify the expected structure of the code_map payload or the format of project_id, leaving the agent to guess at a nested object schema.

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?

States a specific verb pair (validate, store) and a specific resource (source-free code map) scoped to one tenant project. This is distinguishable from siblings like export_code_map or index_code, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent cannot tell from the description how this differs from index_code or when a code map should be ingested versus exported. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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