passage_add

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that the content is researcher-supplied and must attach to an existing preserved source, but says nothing about idempotency behavior, whether re-submission duplicates passages, or any permission requirements. It meets the minimum but adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. Slight deduction because 'honest citation locator' is flowery and vague where a concrete term would be more useful to an agent.

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 mutation tool with a nested-object parameter, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a neighboring passage_correct sibling, the description is too thin. It omits how the passage differs from a correction, whether the add is idempotent, and what the locator sub-fields mean.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It loosely gestures at text ('transcription or observation'), sourceId ('preserved source'), and locator ('honest citation locator'), but never explains the nested locator structure (page, quote, region, precision enum) and entirely omits projectId and idempotencyKey. Substantial gaps remain.

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 a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a researcher-supplied transcription or observation against a preserved source'), which is more informative than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling passage_correct, so the agent cannot tell from the text alone why to use this tool rather than the correction variant.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance. The phrase 'researcher-supplied' implies this is for manual entry of new content, but the agent must infer that this is for creating rather than correcting passages. No prerequisites or sequencing information is given.

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