ingest_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses the destructive behavior: 'replaces any content already indexed' and 'discards its old chunks'. It also clarifies the re-ingesting semantics. It omits edge cases like error handling or permissions, but the key behavioral trait is well covered.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and effect, and the second provides the parameter constraint and re-ingesting detail. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a simple single-parameter tool: it covers purpose, side effects, and the key constraint on filePath. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed. However, it does not address sibling-tool differentiation or potential error/edge cases, leaving a 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?

The input schema has a single parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by adding the critical constraint that filePath must be an absolute path inside a configured document root, which gives the parameter clear semantic meaning beyond its type.

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 a specific verb ('Ingest or re-ingest') with a clear resource ('one file') and states the effect ('replacing any content already indexed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ingest_data and ingest_url by emphasizing 'file' and 'absolute path inside a configured document root'.

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 a clear precondition ('filePath must be an absolute path inside a configured document root') and implies usage for local files. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like ingest_url or ingest_data, nor state when not to use this tool, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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