distillery_ingest_doc

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behaviors: chunking of large text, idempotent deduplication by content hash, and the exact response on re-ingest (persisted=false, dedup_action='skipped'). It does not explicitly mention permissions or failure modes beyond simple error codes, but the core side effects are clearly disclosed.

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 well-structured with clear sections (intro, USE WHEN, PARAMS, RETURNS, RELATED) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat long, but every section adds necessary detail for correct usage, so the length is justified. The use of headings improves scannability for an agent.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the dedup/chunking behavior, provides detailed parameter guidance, explicitly lists success and error return shapes, and references related tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It documents every parameter (text, author, doctype, source, external_id, title, project, tags, metadata) with explanations of defaults, valid values, and how they are stored (e.g., doctype applied as tag and metadata, external_id defaults to SHA-256 hash). This goes far beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ingest an arbitrary document (ADR, spec, decision, customer feedback)'. It uses a specific verb and resource and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like distillery_store (single entry) and PreCompact transcripts, so an agent can easily identify when to use it.

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 'USE WHEN' section explicitly states when to use this tool: 'importing a standalone document... so it becomes queryable knowledge with provenance'. It also contrasts with distillery_store and PreCompact transcripts, providing clear alternatives and the conditions that select this tool over them.

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