Add podcast feed

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: duplicate URLs return the existing row, auto-ingest is off by default and opt-in only, and standing capture still requires dashboard consent. That consent prerequisite is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose leads. The final sentence partly duplicates the auto_ingest schema description, though it adds the dashboard-consent detail, so it earns most but not all of its length.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the sibling alternatives, duplicate handling, the opt-in default, and the separate consent requirement. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and each property already documents its meaning, defaults, and bounds. The description's note that 'audio auto-ingest is a separate explicit opt-in, off by default' largely restates the auto_ingest schema description rather than adding format or syntax guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Register a podcast RSS feed') plus the effect ('ongoing metadata monitoring'), which distinguishes it from register_source and list_podcast_feeds by name. An agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: use this for the podcast feed and episode workflow, use register_source for the general standing-source interface, use list_podcast_feeds to find an existing feed. It also states the duplicate-URL path (returns the existing row), so no inference is needed.

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