nlm_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. It only states the action (adds a source) without disclosing side effects, behavioral traits like whether additions are appended or replace, error handling, or return behavior beyond what the output schema may show.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief; it could include more guidance without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no schema coverage, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It fails to convey the mutual exclusivity of source parameters, the role of text_title, and the essential notebook parameter. The tool's usage is underspecified for safe invocation.

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 add value. It correctly maps 'URL, text, local file' to url, text, file_path parameters but does not explain text_title, the required notebook parameter, or the mutual exclusivity of the source types (exactly one should be provided).

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 verb (Add), resource (source to a notebook), and enumerates the types (URL, text, local file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nlm_list_sources which list sources, and nlm_ask which asks questions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, mutual exclusivity of source types, or what happens if the notebook does not exist. Sibling tool names are present but not referenced.

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