resources_clip_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: SIDE-EFFECTFUL, non-idempotent with no de-dup, auto-classification as content_class='dictionary', anonymous-by-default auth, upstream throttling caveat, and the AUTH_REQUIRED error contract with login_url and retry hint. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the SIDE-EFFECTFUL warning and non-idempotency come first, then AUTH, then error/return shape. Every sentence conveys actionable facts, though the single-block density is slightly heavy.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({file_id, path, title, source}), the error contract, auth behavior, and side-effect profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the schema already documents url, title, and headers (including the AUTH_REQUIRED/retry-with-headers workflow). The description largely restates this, adding only the concrete header examples, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource with full mechanism: 'fetches an EXTERNAL URL and writes a NEW KB file', then enumerates the pipeline (download, Readability extract, markdown convert, save under knowledge/urlclips/). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like 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?

'Use to ingest external docs into the KB' gives clear context, and the AUTH section explains when to pass headers (pages behind logins) after an AUTH_REQUIRED error. It lacks an explicit contrast against sibling alternatives (e.g. when to use files_create instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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