ingest_transcript_results

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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: candidates are created in a non-confirmed, reviewable state. However, since `destructiveHint` is true and `idempotentHint` is false, the description does not clarify what may be destroyed, overwritten, or what happens on repeated invocations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the important 'Nothing is auto-confirmed' caveat is presented separately and clearly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations, the description captures the essential transformation and resulting state. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention return behavior, validation failures, or downstream review workflow details, which would improve clarity for an agent.

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 documents both `source_id` and `extraction_json` with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the JSON is model-produced and that candidates link to a source, but it adds no additional format, validation, or edge-case guidance beyond the 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 states the action (parse), the input type (model-produced extraction JSON), and the result (reviewable Decision Graph candidates linked to source). It clearly distinguishes this from a confirmation/commit action with the caveat 'Nothing is auto-confirmed.'

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 usage context is implied: the tool should be used when model-produced extraction JSON needs to become reviewable candidates without auto-confirmation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as `ingest_transcript`, `decision_import`, or `decision_commit`, nor does it give a direct when-not-to-use condition.

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