smart_ingest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cognitive pipeline (importance scoring, intent detection, synaptic tagging), the batch merge policy (force_create vs. smart), and the forceCreate parameter. It does not cover aspects like idempotency, error handling, or rate limits, but the provided detail is substantial.

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 sentences: the first states the core functionality and the second elaborates on modes and pipeline. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers modes, pipeline, and batch merge policies. It lacks details on return values or error states, but given the complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavior of batchMergePolicy (default force_create, smart allows Prediction Error Gating) and the cognitive pipeline for each item. This enriches the parameter meaning.

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: intelligent memory ingestion with Prediction Error Gating. It specifies two distinct modes—single (content auto-decides CREATE/UPDATE/SUPERSEDE) and batch (items array for session-end saves)—and lists the cognitive pipeline steps. This differentiates it effectively from sibling tools like 'memory' or 'merge_candidates'.

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 context for when to use each mode: single mode for individual content, batch mode at session end or before context compaction. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative tools. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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