ingest_transcript

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

The description states that while storage happens, 'Raven makes no model or network call,' which is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations. It also correctly implies this tool only returns a prompt rather than performing extraction. Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the description does not need to re-state all of them.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, the return value, and an important behavioral boundary. No filler or redundant wording appears, and the most actionable information is front-loaded.

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 is simple, has a fully documented schema, and uses annotations to communicate safety characteristics. The description says what the tool stores and what it returns, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly, though an explicit mention of what 'store' implies semantically would strengthen it.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, including text and source_meta semantics. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about how the parameters map to the extraction prompt, but it also does not need to because the schema carries that information.

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: 'Store a transcript source' and the return result: 'an extraction prompt'. The second sentence clarifies the tool is not actually invoking the model, which makes the intended purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like ingest_transcript_results, but the purpose is still clear from the description alone.

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 implies the tool should be used when a transcript source needs to be stored so an extraction prompt can be returned to the calling agent's model. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives from the sibling tool list, such as ingest_transcript_results.

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