eventstream_add_sample_data_source

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds context by detailing parameters and the return value ('Updated definition summary'). It discloses the modification behavior and output, though it omits prerequisites or side effects.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by clear parameter docs using standard RST format. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, and the return value. Coupled with an output schema (present but not shown), it provides sufficient context for a simple add tool. Missing are error conditions or prerequisites, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's :param lines provide essential meaning: session_id is a builder session ID, sample_type lists examples, and source_name can be auto-generated. This compensates well, though more detail on sample_type options and validation would be beneficial.

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 action ('Add a sample data source') and the resource ('to the eventstream definition'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that add custom endpoints or derived streams.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., eventstream_add_custom_endpoint_source). The description only implies its function through the name 'sample', but does not provide context or exclusion criteria.

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