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 only states the HTTP method (POST) and the vague goal of 'maintenance.' It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, any permission requirements, idempotency, or effects on existing opportunity data.

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 sentence that front-loads the API endpoint. It is concise with no unnecessary words, but it sacrifices detail for brevity. Acceptable structure for a one-liner.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the request body format, when to use the tool, or what the response will contain. The reliance on external API knowledge makes it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information. The body parameter is open-ended (additionalProperties: {}), and the description does not clarify the expected structure for addSources (e.g., list of sources). The schema's own descriptions cover parameter purposes adequately.

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 the exact API endpoint (POST /opportunities/:opportunity/addSources) and associates it with opportunity contact/source/tag maintenance, which distinguishes it from siblings like add_opportunity_tags and remove_opportunity_sources. However, 'maintenance' is vague and does not explicitly say 'adds 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention related tools like add_opportunity_tags or remove_opportunity_sources, nor does it state conditions for use or exclusions.

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