add_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it only partially does so. It implies a mutation on a notebook but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, or processing latency; the wait/blocking behavior is documented only in the schema description, not the tool description.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first then the critical constraint, with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a full schema and an output schema present, the description need not cover return values or parameter formats, and it covers the core action plus the exclusivity rule. It leaves gaps only around invocation behavior (latency, permissions) that a no-annotation mutation tool arguably warrants.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description contributes the mutual-exclusion constraint among url/text/file_path that the schema itself does not encode. That is real added meaning beyond the per-parameter 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (source to a notebook) and enumerates the three accepted input modalities (URL, pasted text, local file). This cleanly separates it from sibling list_sources and delete_source without needing to name them.

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 instruction 'Pass exactly one of url, text, or file_path' is a genuine usage rule that is not enforced by the schema (which only sets additionalProperties: false and does not declare a oneOf), so it adds value. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor when to prefer one input modality over another.

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