whodb_platform_source_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the write is deferred ("stores nothing until the returned confirmation token is approved") and the two-step confirmation workflow. It stops short of 5 by omitting auth/permission needs for the connection fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical confirmation-token constraint. Slightly padded by the final workspace sentence, which largely restates schema wording, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a high-complexity create tool with 9 params, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and the deferred-write semantics an agent must understand. It does not point at whodb_platform_source_types for valid source_type values, but the output schema carries the return-token contract.

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 33% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry more weight. It names the key groups (source_type, name, connection fields, advanced options) and repeats the workspace targeting semantics, but adds no format or syntax detail for the undocumented connection parameters (hostname, port, username, password, database).

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 and resource ("Prepare creation of a hosted WhoDB source") and scopes it to a project, which clearly separates it from source_update and source_delete. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or clarify how it differs from the generic whodb_platform_create, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Gives clear procedural guidance: use this to create a source, then approve the returned token via whodb_platform_confirm, and do not confirm before the user approves the preview. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when...' contrast against source_update, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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