Add/update a research source

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description explains the idempotent behavior: 'Calling again with the SAME title updates in place.' It also discloses extraction behavior from path/url, auto-detection of title/source, and the needText response for problematic inputs. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise at 6 sentences, well-structured with a clear opening, then methods in priority order, edge case handling, and sibling differentiation. No fluff—every sentence provides essential information.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers input methods, auto-detection, update behavior, RAG indexing, and error returns (needsText). It fully prepares the agent for correct invocation without needing additional context.

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?

Despite high schema coverage (88%), the description adds significant meaning: priority order of parameters, auto-detection logic for title and source from url/path, slugification of title, and update behavior. It explains that passing title/source overrides auto-detection and that tags are topical. These details go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Save' and resource 'research source', specifies it goes into a board's sources/library, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools 'add_kb_doc' and 'append_research' by saying 'Use this for the sources; use add_kb_doc / append_research for YOUR notes about them.'

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 explicit guidance on the three input methods in priority order (path, url, text), explains when to use which, and tells how to handle scanned PDFs or JS-rendered pages. It also clearly states when to use alternative tools for notes about sources.

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