add_source_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write that attaches a source, but says nothing about whether the notebook must already exist, what happens on duplicate titles, whether removal is possible, or what the call returns.

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?

A single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and an example in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral detail.

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 required-3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It gives a one-line purpose but does not compensate for the absent parameter and behavior documentation.

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 0% and the description only hints that the text payload is the source content (via the parenthetical example). It adds no meaning for 'title' or 'notebook_id' beyond their self-evident names, leaving half the parameter semantics undocumented.

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 ('Adiciona') and resource ('um texto como fonte de um caderno'), and the parenthetical example clarifies the kind of text. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling add_source_url by specifying text rather than a URL, though it never names that sibling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternative, add_source_url (also adding a source to a notebook), is never mentioned. An agent must infer from the word 'texto' alone that this is for inline text content rather than a link.

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