create_datasource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate slugs, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 8 words, front-loading the essential information. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and parameters. There's zero 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?

For a creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a datasource is in this system, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other tools like 'fetch_datasources'. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'name, slug, and optional dimensions' which maps directly to the 3 parameters, providing basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what a 'slug' is, what format it should have, what dimensions represent, or any constraints on these values.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'datasource', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_datasource_entry' by focusing on the datasource itself rather than its entries. However, it doesn't specify what a datasource is in this context, leaving some ambiguity about the resource being created.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_datasource' or 'create_datasource_entry'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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