add_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sources are added, that a 'wait' parameter controls synchronous behavior, and that results are returned. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., overwriting, idempotency), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The behavioral profile is partially clear but lacks important safety and operational details.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a list of supported types, and an argument section with examples. It is front-loaded with the main action. The 'Args' section adds some redundancy but is helpful for readability. It is slightly verbose but every part serves a purpose, earning a high score without being perfectly concise.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'Dictionary with results for each source' but omits details on error handling, idempotency, or whether sources are appended or replace existing ones. Parameters are well-covered, but the tool's overall behavior (e.g., required notebook existence, limits on number of sources) is not addressed. Siblings are not cross-referenced. Adequate but lacking for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so excellently: each parameter is explained with types and examples. 'sources' is detailed with a JSON array example showing structure ('type', 'value', 'title' for text). 'wait' is clarified as a boolean for processing. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 purpose: 'Add multiple sources to a notebook in a single call.' It specifies the verb 'add', the resource 'sources to a notebook', and highlights batching with 'single call'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_sources' (read-only) or 'research_and_import' (different function). Supported types are listed, adding specificity.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., notebook must exist), or compare with related tools. The context of adding multiple sources is implied but not framed against single-add options or other import methods.

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