ipt_add_source

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

With no annotations, the description explicitly states the write operation ('writes to the IPT') and adds critical behavior: text files are validated first and refused on problems unless skipValidation. This is significant behavioral context that goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover all side-effects (e.g., whether it replaces an existing source).

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph that immediately states the operation and lists supported types. The validation detail and skipValidation exception are added without verbosity, making it both concise and informative.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose, types, and a key behavioral nuance (validation). However, it doesn't explain the return value or error cases, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 71%, so the description compensates by clarifying the type-specific parameters (path for file, url for URL, name for SQL) and the validation behavior. It adds meaning for skipValidation and delimiter, and clarifies type usage, going beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Add') and resource ('data source'), and enumerates the supported types (file, URL, SQL). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on source creation rather than metadata, deletion, or validation.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for adding sources and implies use cases (local file, URL, SQL), but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ipt_configure_source, which might be used for existing sources. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call this tool.

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