Extend data source fabric

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

The description discloses the output structure (Null DAT and Null CHOP) and the functional behavior of each transport (subscribes, streams, listens). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description adds useful context about the downstream integration without over-explaining.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently covers the three transports and the output shape. No unnecessary filler or repetition of schema details.

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 complex tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (Null DAT/CHOP) and downstream usage. It doesn't cover prerequisites or failure modes, but the schema provides strong parameter-level detail, making the description sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema covers all 14 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by noting that 'fields' map to Null CHOP channels, but for the most part it just restates the transport names already in the enum. No significant extra parameter semantics provided.

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 'Adds extra transports to the data-source fabric' and enumerates the three transport types (mqtt, ws-binary, midi-mmc), giving a specific verb+resource scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_data_source, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by positioning itself 'beyond create_data_source' and noting the resulting structure is 'ready for bind_to_channel / create_data_visualization.' However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like connect_mqtt_iot_bus or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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