add_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses merge semantics, YouTube embed behavior, and the visual distinction for source="internal". It stops short of 5 because it does not cover authorization, idempotency, or error behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes a distinct behavioral detail: purpose, merging, embedding, and internal-link marking. There is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values, and the core behavior is covered. However, the description still lacks meaning for required slug and optional kind/section_id, and it never routes between this and sibling content-add tools, so an agent must infer several details.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for group_label and items, but required slug is left undefined and section_id/kind are unexplained, leaving key parameters under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add prerequisite resources' and enumerates the content types (YouTube videos, blog posts, courses, docs). This distinguishes the tool from sibling add-* tools such as add_flashcards and add_section.

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 resource-type list implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for adjacent cases. An agent can infer basic usage, but exclusions and alternatives are left unstated.

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