add_data_registry_source

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), but the description adds meaningful behavior: it creates an object owned by the registry, appends to the source list (implying repeated calls accumulate entries), and states a data-shape precondition. It does not explicitly call out the non-idempotent append-accumulation consequence, keeping it from a 5.

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-loaded with the action, then elaboration, a constraint sentence, and a returns block. Every sentence carries information, though the inline Returns enumeration is somewhat verbose for a no-output-schema tool.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return fields (source_count, saved, save_error) and states the precondition and ownership semantics. Params are fully covered by the schema. It is close to complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the RowStruct/ItemStruct relationship tied to data_table_path; it adds little syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb and resource (attach a DataTable source to a UDataRegistry) and elaborates on the created UDataRegistrySource_DataTable being owned by the registry and appended to its source list. This clearly separates it from remove_data_registry_source and clear_data_registry_sources via the 'add/attach/append' verb, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides a real usage constraint — 'The DataTable RowStruct must match the registry's ItemStruct' — which an agent needs before calling. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to sibling tools, leaving usage only partly implied.

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