add_source_step

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'downstream steps preserved' and the dual seed-or-replace behavior, which are non-obvious and valuable. It does not cover potential side effects like validation failures or reversibility, but the core mutation behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 long but logically structured by connector type. It front-loads the core purpose and then procedurally lists each connector's parameters. Every sentence in the connector list is necessary given the tool's complexity, though it is dense and could benefit from visual formatting in an ideal scenario.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the input space thoroughly, listing all connector kinds and their specific parameter requirements. It also includes a best-practice note for refresh-safe usage. It lacks an example and does not explain return values, but the core behavior and parameters are adequately addressed.

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?

The description provides extensive parameter semantics beyond the schema. For each connector, it lists required and optional keys (e.g., 'sql/oracle/mysql/postgresql/db2 -> server, database (optional query)'), and clarifies the params format as 'comma-separated key=value pairs.' This fully compensates for the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Seed or replace a table's data-source step with a generated connector expression (downstream steps preserved).' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_data_source or rewrite_connection_string, and the note about preserving downstream steps further differentiates it.

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 implies when to use the tool by defining its action (seeding/replacing the data-source step) and provides a concrete usage guideline with the 'Static base URL + relativePath/query is the refresh-safe web pattern' tip. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it.

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