add_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool adds a source, with no mention of side effects, permission requirements, duplicate handling, validation, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and supported types in a compact format, earning its place with every word.

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 simple create tool with no output schema and basic annotations, the description covers the main purpose adequately. However, it omits the optional site_id parameter's role in attaching the source to a site, and does not mention any return values or validation behavior, leaving some context incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by listing source types, which enriches the 'type' enum, but it does not explain the meaning of url, name, or site_id beyond what the schema already provides. It neither significantly compensates nor degrades from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('content source'), and enumerates the supported source types (RSS, YouTube, Reddit, podcast, news). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_source, delete_source, or list_sources.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to add a new content source, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It gives context about what types are supported but no direction on choosing this tool over others.

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