source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=trueable, and the description reinforces this by listing delete_description and detach actions. It adds useful conceptual context about Source Box, source references, and tags, but it does not disclose effects like permanent deletion, permissions, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core concept and then listing actions in a compressed notation. The two-sentence structure plus action enumeration is dense but efficient, with no redundant filler.

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 12 parameters, 7 actions, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the tool is complex enough to require more context. While the action list gives partial parameter mappings, it omits expected return values, per-action required fields for actions like get and create, and behavioral caveats such as irreversibility or authorization needs.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description carries extra weight. It adds meaningful semantics for tags ('fact types this source supports') and about ('URL/ark'), and maps some parameters to actions. However, it does not clarify note, count, start, or changeMessage, leaving four parameters effectively unexplained.

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 identifies the resource: FamilySearch sources, source descriptions, and source references. It then enumerates the specific actions available (list_person, source_box, create, get, delete_description, attach, detach), making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous even as a dispatcher-style tool.

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 provides implied usage context through the action list and parenthetical parameter hints, e.g., 'attach (personId + descriptionId + tags)'. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over sibling tools like record or raw_request, nor does it exclude any alternatives.

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