Add a quote to a 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. It says what gets attached but not whether the source must already exist, what happens on duplicate quotes, whether the write is reversible, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and relegates optional detail to a parenthetical. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least cover preconditions and mutation behavior for a 4-parameter write tool. It covers the operation itself adequately but leaves the source-existence prerequisite and error/return behavior unstated.

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%, so all four parameters (source, text, page, note) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the optional ones (page/location, comment) without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: attach an excerpt to a source. The parenthetical lists the optional fields, making the operation concrete. It does not differentiate from siblings like add_note or add_source, which share nearly identical naming, so an agent gets no explicit routing help.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_note, add_source, or the various update_* siblings. Usage is only implied by the word 'source'. No prerequisites (does the source need to exist?) are stated.

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