add_url_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While it identifies the content sources (YouTube/GitHub), it lacks operational details: no mention of idempotency, whether existing entries are overwritten, async/sync processing, or failure modes.

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 efficiently structured sentences. First establishes purpose and supported resources; second provides sibling alternative. No redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Complete for tool selection: covers supported resources, indexing action, and sibling differentiation. With output schema present, return values need not be described. Minor gap: does not mention that this is a write/mutation operation or its side effects given lack of annotations.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by specifying the two distinct URL types (YouTube vs GitHub), which provides necessary semantic context for the domain-specific parameters (branch, include_patterns, exclude_patterns) that would otherwise seem arbitrary.

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?

States specific action ('Add'), resource types ('YouTube videos/playlists or GitHub repos'), destination ('to the index'), and input method ('via URL'). Clearly distinguishes scope from sibling add_document_tool.

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?

Explicitly directs users to alternative: 'For local files or directories, use add_document_tool instead.' Provides clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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