add_hyper_datasource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Activate" implies a state change, but there is no statement about permissions, whether an existing datasource is replaced, what happens on failure, or whether the file must already exist.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. Its brevity is appropriate in form; the shortfall is substance, not structure, so it is not penalized here.

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 output schema covers return values, so those need not be described. But for a 3-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not: neither name, filepath, nor the table_name default of "Extract" is explained. The meaning of "name" (datasource name vs. connection name) is genuinely ambiguous given the sibling set.

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 verb+resource pair ("add ... data source") is identifiable, but "another independent extracted data source" is jargon-heavy and doesn't clarify what an 'extracted' source is. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like set_hyper_connection or select_datasource, which an agent must choose between.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as set_hyper_connection or set_csv_connection, which occupy adjacent territory. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the tool name.

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