content_create_content_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/open-world profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that – 'Returns the new content source' – which matters since there is no output schema, plus the underlying POST path. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether the source is validated or immediately synced, or what happens on duplicate id.

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, front-loaded lines with no filler; the action and the return value come first. The 'POST /content/api/sources' line is marginally redundant with the name but serves as a low-cost API mapping.

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 create tool with a nested required body, 100% schema coverage, annotation hints, and no output schema, the description covers the action and the return value. It stops short of explaining provider-specific 'config' semantics, permission needs, or post-creation sync behavior, which an agent would want before calling a non-idempotent creation endpoint.

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%, including a nested body with documented id, name, typeId, projectId and an enum for typeId, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema – nothing about whether 'config' is required per provider type or how projectId association behaves. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a Content source') that maps cleanly to the content_* sibling family (get/delete/update/list). It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, but the create/get/update/delete distinction is self-evident from the name and first line.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus content_update_content_source or content_schedule_sync, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., a valid projectId, a supported typeId, or whether sync begins automatically). The agent is left to infer all of this from the schema.

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