kb_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains prerequisites, slice selection, restrictions on seed content, the subject_id guardian-consent seam, and that promotions are logged to the subject's disclosure chain. It also notes subject_id is opaque and never written. This is thorough and does not contradict an annotations (none).

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds essential information about requirements, restrictions, and side effects. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core workflow, constraints, and a side effect. However, it does not describe return values or error conditions, which would be expected for a no-output-schema tool. Minor 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 add meaning. It explains 'slice' with its allowed values and default, and 'subject_id' in detail. However, it does not clarify the remaining parameters (app_id, agent_id, tier, supersede, sensitivity) beyond what their names and defaults imply. This partial compensation warrants a mid-range score.

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 function: 'Promote a ratified agent_seed slice to Postgres KB.' It specifies the source type and destination, and differentiates from siblings by noting it never promotes 'persona.cast' or 'context.personal_note.' This is specific and actionable.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires a ratified and trusted seed at $WILLOW_HOME/seeds/{agent_id}.json, and explains slice types (voice_only, work_context, full) with a default behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like knowledge_ingest or kb_promote, or state when not to use it. The 'Never promotes' clause gives some exclusion, but no alternative guidance.

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