source_add_play_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: publisher-blocked titles rejected, resulting source type (expert_intelligence), asynchronous processing, wait=true blocking until READY, and the web-backend-only restriction. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose and required id are front-loaded in sentence one, with prerequisite, refusal guardrail, source type, async behavior and backend limit following in tight order. No sentence is redundant.

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 payloads need not be described, and the description still notes the read-back type. Between the id prerequisite, publisher-block refusal, async/wait semantics and backend limitation, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, yet all three parameters are explained in prose: content_id is a volume id sourced from source_list_play_books, notebook accepts either a name or an ID, and wait blocks until the source reaches READY. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 first sentence gives a precise verb+resource+discriminator: adding a Google Play Book as a source, identified by content id, resulting in an expert_intelligence source. This clearly separates it from the generic source_add and from source_add_drive_file among the siblings.

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 routes the agent to the prerequisite sibling by stating content_id 'is a volume id from source_list_play_books', and adds a guardrail that publisher-blocked titles are refused up front. It does not explicitly contrast with the generic source_add or say when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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