ingest_data

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: re-using the same 'source' replaces previously ingested content, making this an idempotent update operation. It also clarifies that 'source' is not a filesystem path, reducing potential misuse. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable and goes beyond a simple 'ingest' label, though it does not mention other potential side effects or permissions.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, with each clause serving a purpose. It front-loads the core functionality and then adds essential details about format and source behavior without fluff or repetition.

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 has an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description sufficiently covers the key usage context (in-memory content, source id semantics, replacement behavior, format options) for a simple 4-parameter tool. It could mention edge cases like empty data or size limits, but the current level is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'format' parameter (explicitly listing allowed values and default) and 'source' (stable identifier, not a path, replacement semantics). However, 'data' and 'title' are not explicitly defined, though 'data' is inferable from the tool's purpose. This covers the most critical parameters but leaves some semantics implicit.

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 uses the specific verb 'Ingest' and clearly identifies the resource ('text/markdown/html content') and the namespace ('under a source id you choose'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ingest_file and ingest_url by stating 'content the client holds', indicating raw in-memory content rather than files or URLs.

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 when to use this tool versus alternatives by specifying 'content the client holds', which differentiates it from file-based or URL-based ingestion. It also provides practical guidance on 'source' as a stable identifier and mentions the replacement behavior. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you have raw text as opposed to a file/URL', so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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