add

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes core behavior (copy, ingest, URL fetching to _web/, force overwrite, OCR options, render mode). However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens on conflict without force. Disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a brief overview and a bullet-style parameter list. It is reasonably concise for the amount of information, though some parameter descriptions could be slightly shortened without loss.

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 tool has 5 parameters and 1 required, all explained. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return value explanation is not required. However, the description omits details about error cases, concurrent usage, or performance implications, leaving minor gaps for a complex tool.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter in detail: paths (absolute, URL handling), force (overwrite), enable_ocr (auto-detect), ocr_timeout (override), render_mode (crawl modes). This adds significant meaning beyond schema titles and types.

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 tool adds files, directories, or URLs to the knowledge base and syncs. It uses specific verbs and resource, and the sibling tools list includes 'crawl' and 'list_documents', which suggests differentiation, though not explicit.

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 explains the process (copies, ingests, handles URLs) and prerequisites (absolute paths, accessible machine), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide when-not scenarios.

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