add_content_source

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the downstream behavior that imported posts become repurposable social content, but says nothing about what happens immediately on connect, duplicate-source handling (notable given idempotentHint=false), or that apiKey is required for protected sites.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy, the action front-loaded and the rationale second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is post-call expectations — whether connecting triggers an immediate sync or only schedules one — which the description leaves unaddressed.

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%, with all six parameters documented including two enums and defaults ('default weekly'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never mentions autoImport, importFrequency, or apiKey semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('a WordPress site or RSS feed as a content source'), matching the enum values in the schema. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_content_sources, delete_content_source, and fetch_source_content, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the lifecycle framing ('Imported posts can then be repurposed into social content'), which tells the agent why you'd add a source but not when to prefer it over, say, repurpose_content or fetch_source_content. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are stated.

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