source_enrich

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 the processing pipeline (DeepSeek contextualization, local re-embedding, marking as enriched) and the scope limitation to private sources. However, it does not explain side effects, cost, idempotency, or the role of the force parameter, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The parenthetical about public sources is concise and informative, earning its place.

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, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is not sufficient for full confidence. It omits the behavior of force, what happens after enrichment (e.g., status changes, searchable effects), and any return value. It gives a good overview but fails to cover critical usage 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the force parameter at all and only implicitly refers to source_id. This is a significant omission because force is a boolean that could alter the tool's behavior, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 runs DeepSeek contextualization on a PRIVATE source's pending chunks, re-embeds locally, and marks them enriched. It explicitly distinguishes from public sources, setting it apart from sibling tools like source_refresh and source_add.

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 explicitly says public (context-3) sources are already contextual, implying the tool should only be used for PRIVATE sources. This is a clear when-not-to-use signal, though it does not name alternative tools for public sources.

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