ingest_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions re-ingestion for updates and the absolute path requirement, but lacks details on error handling, overwrite behavior, file size limits, or permissions needed for file access.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and provides a key constraint and a feature (re-ingestion) without any fluff.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, file types, a requirement, and an update feature. It is mostly complete but missing some behavioral transparency and parameter explanations that could be inferred from the schema.

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 100% description coverage, so the description adds little over the schema. It repeats the absolute path requirement already present in the schema description and does not mention the visual or visualQuality parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Ingest' and the resource 'document file into vector database for semantic search', specifying file types (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) and mentioning re-ingestion. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_file and query_documents.

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 the constraint 'File path must be an absolute path' and indicates support for re-ingestion to update existing documents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., ingest_data for different data types).

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