source_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that the tool returns after embed+store (queryable immediately), runs no inline DeepSeek, defaults to public with remote API embedding, offers private=true for fully-local embedding, and includes a nuanced security warning about cloud hosts.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently covers behavioral details, security caveats, and enrichment semantics in four sentences. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle: fetching, embedding, storage, queryability, privacy options, enrichment behavior, and a security warning. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate consequences.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain private (fully-local embedding) and enrich (background contextualization for private sources), which are non-obvious. However, it does not give explicit semantics for url, notebook_id, or display_name beyond their schema titles, leaving some parameters reliant on inference from context.

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 with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch and ingest a source.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like source_list, source_delete, source_refresh, and source_enrich as the creation/ingestion operation, and the need for a notebook_id further clarifies its scope.

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?

It provides clear usage context for the private and enrich parameters, including security considerations and when enrichment applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus source_refresh or source_enrich, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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