intake_convert_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool ingests into the cartridge, implying a state change, but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to the source file). The behavioral detail is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and lists example formats. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, so the description must be comprehensive. It omits the project parameter entirely, fails to describe return behavior or error conditions, and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. For a tool that modifies state (ingestion), this is a significant gap.

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 compensate. It implicitly defines file_path as the local file to convert, but it never explains the 'project' parameter, which appears optional with a default. The description adds no meaning for project, leaving it ambiguous. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool.

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 a specific action (converts) and resource (local file), and lists supported formats. It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly since no sibling performs file conversion or ingestion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other intake-related siblings like list_intake or apply_intake_proposal. It does not state prerequisites, such as file accessibility or cartridge context, nor when not to use it.

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