add_catalog_entry

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It conveys that this tool creates a new catalog entry, but it does not disclose any behavioral details such as duplicate handling, required permissions, side effects, or return behavior. It adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length but under-specified. It does not provide enough information to be useful, so it is not 'appropriately sized' for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 complex creation tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks context about what constitutes a valid entry, how connection info is structured, and what happens on success or failure. The agent would be unable to select or invoke the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters like source_id, connection, columns, or row_count_estimate. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of nested objects and optional fields.

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 'Register a new data source in the catalog' clearly identifies the action (register/add) and the resource (data source in catalog). It distinguishes from update_catalog_entry by emphasizing 'new', though it does not explicitly name that sibling. This is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_catalog_entry or search_catalog. The phrase 'new data source' implies it is for initial registration only, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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