add_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that source_type is auto-detected if omitted, a behavioral trait. However, it does not indicate side effects, permissions, or failure modes, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences plus parameter bullet points, all front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately. An output schema exists (not shown) to handle return values. It could mention that sources are stored for later retrieval, but overall it is sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining notebook_id, content (with examples), and source_type (listing possible values). It adds meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 tool adds a source (file, text, URL) to a notebook, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sources and get_source_text by focusing on the creation action.

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?

The description implies usage by listing parameters and noting auto-detection of source_type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tool directly competes, so missing guidance is a minor gap.

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