Add filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Optionally pass settings' but does not explain the confirm parameter, potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., source must exist), or whether adding a filter is reversible. This is a thin disclosure for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, but it sacrifices critical parameter and behavioral details. It earns its place but could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.

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?

Given the 5-parameter schema with no inline descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required parameters or the confirm field, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error scenarios. The presence of an output schema is not enough to compensate for these missing operational details.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It covers source_name implicitly ('to a source') and filter_settings ('optionally pass settings'), but it does not explain the difference between filter_name and filter_kind, the meaning of confirm, or what the filter_settings object should contain. Significant gaps remain.

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 action: 'Add a filter to a source' and provides concrete examples like chroma_key_v3 and noise_suppress_v2. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools such as remove_filter, toggle_filter, and set_filter_settings.

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 implies when to use the tool—whenever you need to add a filter to a source—but it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to prefer this tool over other filter-related operations, so usage guidance is only implied.

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