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

Discloses the side effect that an approved token lands in the vault under an alias, explains the handshake behavior for server_url, and states the prerequisite of a logged-in identity—all beyond the minimal annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the main purpose front-loaded. No redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return value (consent URL, alias), the post-approval behavior, and the prerequisite. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Adds a complete enum-like list of valid providers and explains the semantic difference between provider and server_url, which is not present in the schema. Also clarifies that the returned alias identifies the stored token.

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?

States a specific action ('Start an OAuth Connect') with a clear deliverable (consent URL), lists the exact provider set, and contrasts provider vs server_url modes. This makes it distinguishable from sibling auth tools like auth_connections/auth_resolve.

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?

Provides clear context for choosing between provider (account-wide, reused everywhere) and server_url (any MCP server, grant bound to that server), and notes the logged-in identity prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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