Add a source manually

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing beyond the purpose. It does not disclose whether duplicate sources are detected, whether the write is idempotent, what happens to an existing source with the same DOI/URL, or what a successful call returns.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Every clause 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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and sibling routing but omits duplicate handling, conflicts with cite_url/update_source, and post-create behavior. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for edge cases.

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 78%, so the schema already documents nearly every field (type enum, authors format, tags casing, dates). The description's 'book / paper / page' phrasing loosely gestures at the type enum but adds no real syntax or constraint detail, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Record a source by hand') and enumerates the cases it covers (book, paper with details, unfetchable page). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling cite_url, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this when cite_url is not possible' gives a clear triggering condition and names the primary alternative. It stops short of full routing guidance -- no mention of the relationship to update_source (avoid duplicates) or add_note/add_quote -- so it's clear context without exclusions.

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