add_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — no fetching occurs — but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, what 'overwrite' actually replaces, persistence location, or permission/validation behavior for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the key behavioral caveat ('does not fetch the document') is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

This is a mutating tool with 3 required params, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description omits what happens on a name collision, how it interacts with 'overwrite', and what state it leaves behind. For a registration/mutation tool the description is too thin.

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 75%, so the schema documents url, service, and workspace adequately. The description adds no parameter meaning and leaves the undocumented 'overwrite' flag (the one parameter that determines mutation semantics) unexplained in either place.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a named Swagger/OpenAPI source') and the second sentence differentiates it from fetch-oriented siblings like refresh_service. It is clear what the tool registers, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you add a source here and presumably fetch it elsewhere. The phrase 'does not fetch the document' gestures at the refresh_service boundary without stating when to use one vs the other, and no prerequisites or ordering (e.g., after init_project) are given.

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