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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It only adds the constraint that the connector must be active, but does not disclose any side effects, whether it overrides existing attachments, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation-derived safety profile.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the clarification about tenant-authored Python tool is concise and adds value without bloat.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks important context. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., agent exists), idempotency, or failure behavior. Given the complexity, it could benefit from additional usage and behavioral details.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, aside from reinforcing 'active' which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (attach), the resource (code connector), and the target (agent). It also clarifies what a code connector is (tenant-authored Python tool), which distinguishes it from other attach_* siblings like attach_api_endpoint or attach_mcp_server. The verb is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other attach_* tools. It does not mention that this is for Python-based code connectors only, nor does it offer exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer from the sibling names, which is not sufficient for clear selection.

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