attach_source

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value: sequential ID assignment, an SSRF private/loopback/metadata check before any fetch, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that fetched text is untrusted evidence. However, it says nothing about duplicate-URL handling, permission or seed-existence requirements, mutation side effects, or what a caller receives back — large gaps for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the optional flag and the safety caveat. 'No RSS.' is telegraphic and slightly ambiguous in intent, but no sentence 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers only the fetch path and the safety posture. The four metadata parameters and the return behavior are left entirely for the agent to guess.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains 'fetch' well (opt-in server-side URL load gated by an SSRF check) and implies 'url', but seed_id, title, quote and notes get no explanation of what they do or how they interact with the fetched text.

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 source') plus the observable effect of assigning sequential identifiers (S1, S2, …), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_sources. It never names a sibling or states what the source is attached to (a seed), so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: you attach a source when you want one registered under a seed. The one explicit exclusion, 'No RSS', tells the agent this tool is not the path for feed sources. There is no guidance on duplicates, on when to prefer capture_seed over this, or on prerequisites.

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