Ingest into Hydra DB

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic insight extraction and knowledge graph building, and supports plain text/markdown. However, it does not address side effects, mutual exclusivity of `text` and `turns`, required permissions, or return behavior, leaving gaps.

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 concise at five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and logically structured: purpose, usage, features, alternative mode, and format support. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers primary usage and features but lacks details on output format, error handling, and differentiation from close siblings like hydra_db_store. This is adequate for basic use but not comprehensive.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds value by clarifying that `turns` is an alternative to `text`, and that Hydra DB auto-extracts insights (context for `infer`). This goes beyond the schema's individual 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 tool's purpose: 'Save important information to Hydra DB' and specifies the types of content (facts, preferences, decisions, notes). It distinguishes from sibling by mentioning the alternative use of `turns` for conversation ingestion, differentiating from hydra_db_ingest_conversation.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (persisting user-remembered information) and offers an alternative approach for conversations via the `turns` parameter. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like hydra_db_store or hydra_db_ingest_conversation, leaving some ambiguity.

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