cite

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

Adds real behaviour beyond the annotations: the call mutates the document body ('its definition is appended to the body') and is upsert-like ('Reusing an id replaces that entry'), and it explains what the call returns. The replace-on-same-id semantics sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but this is a nuance rather than an outright contradiction.

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?

Purpose and return value are front-loaded, and most clauses carry unique information (how to build `resource`, credibility signals, stale window). The unusual line-wrapping and undefined '§5.1' / 'via' jargon cost some clarity without adding filler, so it is dense but not padded.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it does well to state the return value and the body-append side effect. The gap is coverage completeness: the required `file` target and a few optional fields go unexplained, so an agent still has to infer what identifies the destination document.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the load: it explains server, tool, args, resource, author, usage_count, last_modified and stale_days>0. However the sole required parameter `file` is never mentioned, nor are `title` or `bundle`, and it references a `via` field that does not exist in the schema, which can mislead.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Record where a fact came from as a §5.1 sources entry', and adds the return value (a footnote marker to place after the claim). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like `search` or `lint`, though it never explicitly contrasts with near-neighbours such as `provenance` or `record`, and the §5.1 spec reference is opaque without external context.

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 conditional routing: 'When an MCP tool produced it, pass server, tool and args' and 'resource: a real URL when the result has one, else mcp://server/tool?args'. It also ties itself to the sibling `recheck_plan` ('it is the re-check recipe'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a comparison to other provenance-style siblings.

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