whodb_platform_source_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: a draft test does not save the config, and a per-call workspace does not change session defaults. It stops short of saying what a failed connection test reports or whether credentials are validated or stored.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the two invocation modes, then the workspace caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the mode logic and workspace targeting well for a 9-parameter, nested-object tool. Minor gaps remain around the credential/advanced fields and what happens on a failed test, but nothing that would cause an agent to invoke it incorrectly.

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 only 33% over 9 parameters, so the description carries real weight here. It explains the source vs. source_type-plus-connection-fields dichotomy and the purpose of the workspace object ('per-call targeting without changing defaults'), compensating for the undocumented port/database/hostname/username/password/advanced fields, which are only covered collectively as 'connection fields'.

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 the specific verb (test) and resource (a hosted WhoDB source connection), which cleanly separates it from siblings like whodb_platform_source_create, whodb_platform_source_update, and whodb_platform_source_config. It also distinguishes its own two modes (saved source vs. draft config), so an agent knows exactly what invocation it is.

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 explicit mode-selection guidance: 'Pass source to test an existing saved source' and 'Omit source and pass source_type plus connection fields to test a draft config without saving it.' That covers when to use each branch, though it names no alternative sibling tool for related needs (e.g., source_config for inspecting rather than testing).

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