ingest_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the user-agreement gate, the draft-type side effect, and the returned batch_id, but says nothing about permissions (approved_by format), idempotency, or whether a second apply on the same preview is rejected.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the gating constraint; the parenthetical and sibling pointer are compact. Every sentence earns its place, minor cost from the em-dash clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description leaves all three required parameters undefined on a mutation tool with zero annotations. The workflow gate is covered but the call contract is not.

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% and the description never explains preview_id, approved_by, or user_answer — including the free-form format of user_answer, which is the sort of value that will be guessed wrong. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: write one preview as one ingest batch, and names the return value (batch_id). It implicitly distinguishes itself from ingest_preview/ingest_revert by the word 'apply', though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Gives a hard precondition — ONLY after the user agreed to that preview — and routes the follow-up case (new entity types) to apply_schema_proposal. No explicit when-not guidance relative to ingest_preview or ingest_revert, but the gating condition is unusually clear.

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