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

Annotations declare it non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds real auth context (owner approval, scopes stored by InfraPulse, bearer reuse). It omits, however, that the tool also drives follow-up state changes (suspend, resume, refresh_funding), so an agent reading only the description would believe this is purely an onboarding call. Not a contradiction with annotations, but an incomplete behavioral picture.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the two credential paths are front-loaded. Efficient, though the space is spent on onboarding at the expense of the tool's other modes.

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 6-parameter, multi-action tool with an anyOf schema and follow-up actions including suspend and refresh_funding, the description covers only the account-linking path. An agent would not learn from the description that this tool manages connection lifecycle state, which is the main completeness gap.

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 explains scopes, request_id, connection_id, and agent_id — the description mostly restates the scopes behavior. It adds nothing about the action enum or the anyOf branch structure that governs which parameters are required.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Connect an InfraPulse identity to the MCP workflow') and enumerates two credential paths (OAuth with owner approval vs. machine self-registration). However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'authorize', which an agent could reasonably confuse with connecting an identity.

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?

It gives clear internal routing (existing customer accounts -> OAuth; autonomous machines -> /v1/agents/register), which is genuinely useful. But it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'authorize' or 'discover', and says nothing about when to call it with action=status/approve/suspend/resume rather than creating a new connection.

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