source_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that file_path must be on the MCP server machine, that image-bearing sources feed video generation, and describes wait/wait_timeout behavior. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the given details are substantial.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, a list of supported types, parameter descriptions, and examples. It is somewhat long but each sentence contributes useful information. It front-loads the core purpose and separates sections clearly, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating source type examples).

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 complexity (11 parameters, 4 source types, conditional behaviors) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is highly complete. It addresses all parameter interactions, provides comprehensive examples, and clarifies platform-specific constraints (file_path accessibility).

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 0%, so the description must fully explain all 11 parameters. It does so thoroughly, detailing each parameter's role conditioned on source_type, including supported extensions for file, and providing multiple examples that illustrate parameter combinations. This adds significant value 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 clearly states 'Add a source to a notebook. Unified tool for all source types.', specifying the verb (add), resource (source to notebook), and scope (all source types). It lists supported types, distinguishing it from siblings like source_delete, source_describe, etc., which handle other operations on sources.

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 explains that the tool is unified for all source types and provides parameter usage per type (url, text, drive, file) with examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the sibling tool names imply alternatives for specific operations (e.g., source_delete, source_sync_drive), making the usage context clear enough.

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