source_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the wait/wait_timeout behavior for processing completion and notes that image-bearing sources feed a visual-crop pipeline for video generation. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., duplicate sources) but provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple add action.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, bulleted parameter list, and examples. It is slightly lengthy due to the number of parameters but remains focused and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential functionality, parameter meanings, and usage patterns. It lacks information about constraints or error handling but is otherwise complete for an AI agent to understand the tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description entirely compensates. It comprehensively explains each parameter: notebook_id, source_type with options, url, urls, text, title, file_path, document_id, doc_type, wait, wait_timeout. It also provides allowed values and examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Add a source to a notebook. Unified tool for all source types.' and lists supported types (url, text, drive, file), making the action and scope very clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like source_delete or source_rename.

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 clearly indicates this is the unified tool for adding sources and provides usage guidance through examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks like listing or syncing.

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