Ingest a document

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pipeline (chunk, embed, upsert) and idempotency. However, it omits potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, which are relevant for an ingestion tool.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the process, the input alternatives, and the idempotency guarantee. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 4 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core process and idempotency but lacks details on return values, error handling, size limits, or post-ingestion state changes. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that url and text are alternatives ('Provide either a URL ... or raw text'), which is not explicit in the schema. It does not elaborate on source or title beyond their schema descriptions.

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 action ('Chunk → embed → upsert') and the resource ('document into pgvector'). It mentions two content sources (URL or raw text). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is specific and distinct from the retrieval tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (answer_question, search_docs). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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