add_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain behavior (a source is created once and reused, repository linkage is optional) but says nothing about duplicate handling or what happens if a similar source already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 imperative verb and resource, and the following sentences each add domain context (evidence model, citation relationship, repository linkage) rather than restating the name. Slightly verbose but no sentence is pure padding.

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 creation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential domain model an agent needs in Gramps (Source vs Citation, optional Repository). The main omission is duplicate/already-exists behavior, which the annotations leave open.

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 six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the optional Repository concept ('where the source is held'), which is a marginal conceptual clarification rather than new format or syntax guidance. 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Source), then defines the resource concretely as a body of evidence (record set, book, certificate, website). It also positions it against the sibling add_citation by explaining that a Source is cited *through* a Citation, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear workflow guidance: create the source once, then create citations against it for each fact, and optionally link a Repository. This implicitly routes the agent to add_citation for the next step. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for a different scenario, so it stops short of a 5.

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