Source Add

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side-effect behavior, but it only restates the action and supported source types. It does not mention that adding a source creates a notebook resource, may be asynchronous unless wait=True, or has file-system/admission caveats; those live in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the operative verb and scope are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes by naming the resource, the unified nature, and the supported source types.

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?

The schema is rich enough to guide per-parameter invocation, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to discuss return values. However, for a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description leaves general behavioral context and sibling-tool routing unstated; it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 input schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description's 'Supports: url, text, drive, file' matches source_type choices but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing per-parameter descriptions.

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?

Description names a specific action and resource ('Add a source to a notebook') and immediately lists supported source types, making it clear this is the ingestion tool rather than sibling operations like source_describe or source_delete. 'Unified tool for all source types' further establishes its scope.

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 when to use it (adding any of url, text, drive, file to a notebook) but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as source_list_drive, source_sync_drive, or source_get_content. There is no 'when not to use' guidance beyond the implied add-vs-manage distinction.

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