whodb_platform_source_create

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the crucial non-persistence guarantee ("This stores nothing until the returned confirmation token is approved") and the fact that the workspace argument is per-call and does not mutate defaults. It does not explain what happens to the password/credentials passed here, nor what occurs if the token is never confirmed or expires — annotations already carry the safety profile, so this is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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 action and immediately followed by the non-persistence caveat and the confirm precondition. Every sentence carries information; only the workspace sentence slightly duplicates the schema's own workspace description.

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 presence of an output schema means the confirmation token needn't be explained, and annotations plus nested schema descriptions cover targeting. What remains missing for a 9-parameter create tool is source_type-dependent field requirements and credential handling, which the description never addresses.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, hostname, port, database, username, password, and the advanced map are undocumented in the schema. The description only groups them as "connection fields, and advanced options" without saying which are required per source_type or how advanced keys are chosen, so it partially but not fully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 phrase ("Prepare creation of a hosted WhoDB source") plus the scope ("in the selected project"), and makes the two-phase nature explicit by naming whodb_platform_confirm as the follow-up. It does not directly contrast with adjacent siblings like whodb_platform_source_update or whodb_platform_source_test, so an agent must infer that boundary from those tools' own definitions.

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 concrete sequencing guidance: which fields to pass, and an explicit prohibition ("Do not call whodb_platform_confirm until the user approves the confirmation preview"). It stops short of naming prerequisites that clearly exist among the siblings, such as discovering valid ids via whodb_platform_source_types or checking whodb_platform_source_fields before calling.

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