dume_ingest_enterprise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: secrets/PII scrubbing, a Markdown card written to ~/.dume/assets/, and active state pointer commits to DUMEdb. It does not cover failure/idempotency behavior or permission needs, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by processing/side-effect details. No filler.

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 side-effect story is adequate and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the silent treatment of entity_id and payload formatting is a real gap for correct invocation.

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, but it mentions none of the three explicitly. The listed payload types loosely map to intake_type values, yet the payload format and entity_id (default 'MadBrad-Nostra-01') are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Ingests an enterprise JSON payload') and enumerates the three payload kinds (PR design proposal, APM stack trace, incident postmortem ticket), which clearly separates it from the read/query/commit-state siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 enumerated payload types imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead when…' guidance, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a schema must exist first, or how this relates to dume_commit_state). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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