ingest_data

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that re-ingestion with the same source identifier updates existing content, but does not disclose other behaviors like first-creation effect, error states, or required permissions.

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?

Three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and a key nuance (re-ingestion). Front-loaded with the main distinction from file ingestion.

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?

Lacks description of return value or outcome, which is notable given no output schema. However, the description is sufficient for a simple ingestion task and includes essential details for correct invocation.

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 50% but all parameters have descriptions in schema. Description adds value by explaining re-ingestion behavior and giving concrete examples for source identifier format, which enriches the meaning beyond the schema.

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 ingests content as a string, not from a file, and gives specific use cases (fetched web pages, copied text, markdown strings). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ingest_file' by specifying files are not allowed.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for strings with format text, html, or markdown) and when not (for files on disk, use ingest_file instead). Provides clear guidance on source identifier format for re-ingestion.

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