add_repository

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds conceptual domain context but nothing behavioral beyond the annotations — no mention of duplicate handling (relevant given idempotentHint=false), required permissions, or what the call returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, followed by a compact hierarchy note and a usage sentence; nothing is padded. The hierarchy explanation is useful framing rather than filler, though the definition of "Repository" is restated in slightly different words.

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 three-parameter create tool with full schema documentation and annotations covering the write-safety profile, the description supplies enough domain framing to call it correctly. It is only slightly short given there is no output schema — the return value (e.g., the new repository identifier) is never described.

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 all three parameters (name, url, repository_type) are already documented in the schema. The description's list of repository kinds loosely overlaps with the repository_type enum examples but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Create a Repository") and immediately defines the entity: "an institution or place that holds sources." It also places the entity in the evidence model (Repository -> Source -> Citation -> fact), which distinguishes it from siblings like add_source and add_citation without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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?

It states clear usage context by enumerating the kinds of things to create repositories for (archives, libraries, cemeteries, websites you'll cite sources from). That tells the agent when this tool applies, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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