Ingest policy text

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive write; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: chunking/embedding, citation of ingested text in future decisions, plan-limit consumption, demo-domain copy semantics, and the team-plan admin-only restriction. That is exactly the kind of side-effect and authorization detail a caller needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers the consequential behavioral details, then lists args cleanly. It is somewhat dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the permission/plan/copy semantics and full parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly in a domain-mutating scenario.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so for all three params: domain ('existing or new'), text ('policy or reference text'), and source ('shown in the document list'). The text param is nearly a restatement of its title, keeping this from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add policy/reference text to a domain's knowledge base') and clarifies the downstream effect (chunked, embedded, cited in future decisions). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like put_rules or import_policy_rules, which operate on rules rather than raw document text.

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?

Gives clear decision context: the domain may be existing or new, creating a new domain claims it for the account, and ingesting into a demo domain makes a private copy. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives (e.g. import_policy_rules) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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