Add source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that YouTube transcription is asynchronous, that callers must poll get_notebook until status is 'done', that text is stored immediately, and that the call returns the created source with id and status. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then per-type requirements, then the exclusion and return value. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value (created source with id and status) plus the async polling workflow and type-specific requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents each parameter, including 'required when type is youtube/text'. The description restates those conditional requirements but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g. it never mentions the lang parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a source to a meeting note') and immediately enumerates the two supported source types with their required inputs. It also carves out a distinct boundary by clarifying that a recording comes from the Roomtone app rather than this tool, so an agent will not confuse it with capture tools.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for selecting each mode: 'youtube' requires url and is transcribed asynchronously, 'text' requires text and is stored immediately. It also states a when-not case ('A recording itself always comes from the Roomtone app, not from this tool') and points to get_notebook for polling the async result.

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