statewave_ingest_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a write operation, immediately stored but not retrievable until compilation, idempotent with idempotency_key, and returns the stored episode id, idempotency_key, and a duplicate boolean. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise at three sentences, but the second sentence is quite long and packs many details. While all information is relevant, the structure could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, it is well front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies what is returned (stored episode id, idempotency_key, duplicate boolean). It covers the complete workflow: write, compile later, idempotent behavior. It accounts for all required parameters with examples and distinguishes from sibling tools. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: for 'kind' it gives dotted lowercase naming conventions and examples; for 'text' it notes it is the primary text distilled into memory; for 'source' it explains provenance; for 'subject' it provides pattern and examples; 'metadata' is optional free-form; 'occurred_at' and 'idempotency_key' are clearly explained with usage details.

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 it writes a single normalized event into Statewave's raw memory log, specifying the subject, kind, and other fields. It distinguishes from siblings by explaining that compiled memories are accessed via statewave_get_context and statewave_search_memories, and that statewave_compile_subject must be called afterward.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to capture durable facts, decisions, messages, or system events) and when not to rely on it for retrieval until compilation. It provides clear guidance that the episode is not immediately retrievable and requires statewave_compile_subject. It also mentions idempotency for safe retries.

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