nexterm_create_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is 'initially sync' — disclosing that creation triggers a sync side effect not visible in annotations — but it says nothing about what that sync does, whether duplicates are created on repeat calls, or how partial-sync failure is reported.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the 'initially sync' side effect is not buried. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose core parameter is an unexplained URL, so not a 5.

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, no annotations on auth, and zero schema description coverage on both required parameters, the description is the only place the agent could learn what a 'content source' is and what creation returns. It omits that entirely, leaving a create-mutation tool underspecified.

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%: 'url' and 'name' carry only titles and length constraints. The description does not explain what the URL points to (SSH config, git repo, API endpoint) or whether it is fetched, parsed, or stored verbatim — exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved for a required open-world URL argument.

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 ('Create ... a Nexterm content source') and adds that creation is paired with an initial sync. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling source tools (update_source, sync_source, validate_source) beyond the verb.

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?

No indication of when to use this rather than nexterm_update_source, nexterm_validate_source, or nexterm_import_ssh_config, and no prerequisites such as URL format or required permissions. The only hint is the implied 'new source plus first sync' flow, which the agent must infer.

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