Ingest policy text

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

Even though annotations mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: text is chunked and embedded, future explanations will cite it, creating a new domain claims it for the account, plan limits apply, and admin permissions are required on team plans. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 tightly structured: a purpose statement, behavioral detail, usage restrictions, and a clear Args list. Every sentence carries relevant information without filler, and the most important action appears first.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, behavior, ownership implications, permission constraints, and all parameters. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: 'Args' defines domain (existing or new), text (policy/reference text), and source (optional source name shown in the document list). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 verb and resource: 'Add policy/reference text to a domain's knowledge base.' It also explains that text is chunked/embedded and cited in future decisions, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_rules, decide, or get_usage.

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 gives clear context: demo domains are read-only, so users should ingest into their own domain; team plans restrict ingest to domain admins. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like put_rules or import_policy_rules, but it does provide practical when-to/when-not-to guidance.

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