create_raw_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-overwriting behavior, which is a critical safety trait. However, it does not detail permissions, side effects, or return behavior, but for a simple creation tool this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key behavior. No redundant words; front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks explanation of what a raw source is, expected path format, content structure, or usage examples. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description does not provide enough context for correct use.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters (path, content, request_id). The agent gets no guidance on what each parameter means or how to format them.

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 explicitly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'raw source under raw/', with a clear scope. It distinguishes from siblings like read_raw_source by specifying 'Existing files are never overwritten,' indicating it's for new files only.

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 provides a key guideline: 'Existing files are never overwritten,' which informs when to use this tool (for new files) and implies not to use it for updates. However, it lacks explicit mention of when not to use or direct alternatives.

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