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

The description explicitly states that connecting is an authorization the user performs on the returned page and that this tool only returns the link, adding nuance beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also clarifies how link_text is used, providing useful behavioral detail.

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 moderately sized but well-structured, leading with the core purpose and then providing supplemental context about source ids, link_text, and the tool's limited action. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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 simple nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (a markdown link), the origin of parameters, and the boundary between this tool and the user's authorization step. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

While the schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that source_id must be exactly as listed and appears in specific other tool outputs. It also elaborates that link_text becomes the connect page title, going beyond the schema's description.

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 tool returns a ready markdown link for a memory source by id, listing supported source types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing this is a link-returning tool, not the actual connection action.

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 explains that source ids appear in unconnected_sources and cortex_connectable_sources, and that the caller judges which source fits from answers and tags. It clarifies that the tool only returns the link while the user performs authorization separately, providing clear context for when to use it.

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