manage_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only lists action names. It does not explain side effects of 'enable'/'disable', whether actions are idempotent or reversible, what data 'list' returns, or any prerequisites such as authentication or required source ids.

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 sentence with no filler: it opens with the action verbs and names the resource. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to fully support the multi-action behavior of the tool.

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?

For a four-parameter, four-action tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, this description is incomplete: it omits per-action parameter requirements, behavioral caveats, and sibling routing. The presence of an output schema lessens the need to document return values, but the remaining gaps are material.

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 compensate, but it only supplies the domain ('RSS research sources'). It does not explain how url, name, and source_id map to each action (e.g., which are required to add versus enable/disable), leaving the agent to infer parameter relationships from names alone.

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 concrete resource ('RSS research sources') and enumerates the exact operations ('Add, list, enable, or disable'), making it clear what the tool does despite the generic name 'manage_source'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as add_article or refresh_sources, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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: agents should call it when they need to manage RSS research sources. However, it never states when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., refresh_sources for refreshing, add_article for adding content) should be preferred in related situations.

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