resources.clip_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses side-effectfulness, creation of a new file, non-idempotency/no de-dup, auth defaults, upstream throttling risk, the AUTH_REQUIRED error shape, and the return payload. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Though long, every sentence carries critical operational information: side effects, idempotency, auth behavior, rate limiting, error handling, and return format. The SIDE-EFFECTFUL warning is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, what side effects occur, how auth works, what errors look like, and what the response contains. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, so the schema already documents `url`, `title`, and `headers`. The description adds some context around `headers` for auth and mentions the title override default, but it mostly reinforces what the schema already states rather than adding substantial new 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 states a specific verb and resource: "fetches an EXTERNAL URL and writes a NEW KB file," and clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by explaining the exact pipeline (Readability extraction, markdown conversion, saving under `knowledge/urlclips/`). An agent can immediately tell this is an external-ingestion tool distinct from files.create or resources.add_report.

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 gives clear context by ending with "Use to ingest external docs into the KB" and explains when to pass `headers` for auth-walled pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, but the use case is well-defined.

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