knowledge_ingest_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Write' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the workspace doesn't exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response format looks like. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential action and target. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after ingestion, how to verify success, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other knowledge tools. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (workspace, content, title), the description provides no information about parameter meanings. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid workspace identifier, what format/content restrictions apply to the text, or whether the title parameter is optional/required. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Write raw text') and target ('into a workspace inbox'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'knowledge_ingest_clipboard' or 'knowledge_ingest_url' which likely perform similar ingestion functions with different input sources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling ingestion tools (knowledge_ingest_clipboard, knowledge_ingest_url), there's no indication of when raw text ingestion is preferred over clipboard or URL ingestion, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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