add_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that registering a source enables claims to bind to verifiable byte ranges, but it does not explain idempotency, duplicate handling, storage side effects, or what happens to unverified origin metadata.

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 filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately states the downstream purpose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, more context is needed. The description omits required parameter semantics, return behavior, and lifecycle guidance such as whether re-registering an existing source_id overwrites or errors.

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 67%, and the required params source_id and text have no individual descriptions. The description adds some meaning by identifying a 'source document' and 'byte ranges', which implies text contains the document bytes, but it does not clarify source_id semantics or format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('source document') and explains the purpose: binding claims to verifiable byte ranges. It does not explicitly name sibling tools but the contrast with 'remembered' claims makes its role reasonably distinct.

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 when to use the tool: before claims are remembered, to give them verifiable byte ranges. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare against alternatives like remember or recall.

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