add_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 of behavioral disclosure, yet it discloses almost none. It does not state what happens if source_id already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. The purpose is described, but not the behavioral consequences of calling the 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 sentence with minimal waste, and it front-loads the primary action ('Register a source document') before the purpose clause. The sentence is slightly convoluted and abstract, but it earns its length and is appropriately compact.

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 zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must carry the full explanatory burden but leaves too much unstated. Key operational details — what text should contain, how source_id is used, what 'verifiable byte ranges' means in practice, and what happens on duplicate registration — are absent, making the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description must compensate, but it does not. The schema has two bare string parameters (source_id and text) with no descriptions, and the description never explains what 'text' represents (the document content?) or what 'source_id' is (an identifier, a URL?). For a registration tool with an abstract 'verifiable byte ranges' concept, this is a real gap.

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 ('Register a source document') and explains the purpose (bind claims to verifiable byte ranges). It is not a tautology of the name and the concept of registering a source before claiming against it is reasonably distinguishable from the sibling tools. However, the 'verifiable byte ranges' phrasing is abstract and leaves some ambiguity about what exactly the tool accomplishes.

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 only implied, not explicit. The phrase 'so claims remembered against it bind' suggests one registers a source before remembering claims against it, which hints at sequencing relative to the sibling 'remember' tool. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria.

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