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

The description discloses the side effect: 'This writes playbook state; it does not by itself invoke remote tools.' It also states the permission requirement, which adds value beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false, etc.). It does not contradict annotations. Some additional context like failure modes or return behavior is absent, but the core behavioral transparency is strong.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then side effects and permissions, and finally usage guidance. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundant or filler content. It is optimally concise.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, side effects, permissions, related tools, and target parameter. It does not describe what the return value represents, which would be helpful since there is no output schema, but this is a minor gap. Overall, the description is thorough for a create-type operation.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain each. It does add a small clarification for playbook_id ('Pass playbook_id as the UUID or GUID of the playbook this call should target'), but this largely reiterates the schema. No significant new parameter meaning is provided beyond what the schema already contains.

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 the verb and resource: 'Connect an MCP or OpenAPI server to this playbook by storing its transport configuration.' It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it does not invoke remote tools (unlike call_connected_tool) and is for adding a server (unlike list_mcp_servers).

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 explicit usage context: it mentions the required permission (playbooks:write), gives clear alternatives ('Use call_connected_tool to invoke a discovered tool, and list_mcp_servers to inspect connections'), and indicates the targeting requirement for playbook_id. This fully guides the agent on when and how to use the tool.

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