Create Import Source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the source automatically pulls feed content, hinting at ongoing/scheduled behavior, but says nothing about permissions or the effect of the schedule/auto_publish flags. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 zero waste; the verb and resource lead and the clarifying clause follows immediately. Nothing extraneous and no padding.

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 7-parameter creation tool the description is thin: the schema documents every field and annotations cover safety, but there is no usage context, prerequisite info, or mention of what happens after creation. Adequate but with visible gaps an agent must infer.

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%, so all seven parameters including defaults (active, schedule, auto_publish) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or behavioral meaning beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new RSS/Atom import source') and clarifies the effect ('automatically pulls content from a feed'). An agent can distinguish it from list/update/delete/trigger siblings by function, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives such as update_import_source or trigger_import_source. The purpose is inferable but the agent gets no help choosing between this and sibling import tools.

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