blueprint_source_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Registers' implies a mutation and 'opens it as data only' hints at safe handling, but it says nothing about permissions, idempotency of source_id, behavior on duplicate registration, or failure modes for a 12-parameter write.

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 no filler, and the key scope ('registers a file ... as one of a gun's sources') is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but it is tight and well ordered.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do all the work for a 12-param (6 required) tool — yet it leaves the return value, the multi-step context it hints at, and most parameter meanings unspecified. An agent could invoke it, but with substantial guessing.

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 only 25% — kind, distribution and license_basis are documented in-schema, while url, file, year, credit, gun_title, publisher, title and source_id are bare. The description adds only 'PDF or picture' for file and 'with its license', leaving most parameters 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?

Names a specific verb (registers) and resource (a file as one of a gun's sources with its license), which is far more informative than a tautology. It also signals a workflow position ('Step 1'), helping distinguish it from siblings like blueprint_fact_add or blueprint_figure_add, though it never names an alternative 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?

'Step 1' implies this must run first in a sequence, which is genuine sequencing guidance. However, it never says what step 2 is, when not to use this tool, or how it relates to the other blueprint_*_add siblings, so usage is only implied.

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