add_feed

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

The description reveals that the tool validates the URL by fetching and parsing, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not detail behavior on validation failure, idempotency, or authorization requirements. With no annotations, this is partially transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and provide a key behavioral note. No extraneous content.

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?

Missing essential details: return value on success/failure, error handling, behavior if feed already exists, and authentication. No output schema or annotations further limit completeness for a mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only 'label' has a description). The description adds that the URL is a feed URL but does not fully compensate for the undocumented 'url' parameter, failing to specify accepted formats or protocols.

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 clearly states the tool's action: subscribe to a new RSS or Atom feed URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_feeds and remove_feed by indicating it adds a new feed.

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 implies when to use (when adding a new feed) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings.

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