add_tileset_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies 'Add' as a mutation but does not explain that it modifies a .tres file, whether it requires an existing TileSet, how source_id auto-detection works (already in schema), what happens to existing sources, or error/return behavior. This significant gap for a mutating tool leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 having 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides only a minimal statement of purpose. It does not cover when to use the tool, behavioral expectations, prerequisites, or return values. For a tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by clarifying that texture_path refers to an atlas texture, but this is also in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for gaps but also does not introduce confusion.

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 'Add an atlas source (texture) to a TileSet' uses a specific verb (Add) and clearly identifies the resource (atlas source/texture) and target (TileSet). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_tileset, read_tileset, and create_atlas_texture by explicitly stating it adds an atlas source to an existing TileSet.

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 implies usage (adding a texture atlas to a TileSet) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_atlas_texture or create_tileset. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing TileSet, or contrast with sibling tools.

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