Add source to scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Add', which implies mutation but does not describe side effects, whether the source must already exist, if duplicate additions are allowed, what happens on failure, or how the 'confirm' and 'enabled' parameters affect execution. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff, but it is perhaps too terse given the missing parameter and behavioral details. It earns its place but does not use the available space to improve clarity.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the optional parameters (confirm, enabled), the prerequisites (source must exist), or the outcome of adding a source. Although an output schema exists, it doesn't make up for the lack of behavioral and parameter context.

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 with parameter explanations. It does not. The schema lists four parameters (source_name, scene_name, confirm, enabled) with no descriptions, and the tool description adds nothing about their meaning or constraints. Even the basic mapping of 'source' and 'scene' to parameter names is trivial and does not clarify behavior.

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'), the resource ('source'), and the target ('scene'), with the clarifying phrase 'existing source' and 'as a new scene item'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_source or remove_source_from_scene.

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 implied by the phrase 'existing source' — it should be used when the source already exists and you want to place it in a scene. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is limited to what is inferred from the wording.

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