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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a linking/mutation operation and that the credential must come from an external dashboard, which is useful. It does not address reversibility, whether an existing connection is overwritten, permission requirements, or failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the prerequisite. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and credential sourcing, which is the most important gap. It leaves open what happens on an invalid token, whether an existing link is replaced, and what the call returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains what publisher_token is and where it comes from (the AR dashboard), which is real added meaning, but product_id is never described and no format or identifier conventions are given for either parameter.

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 verb and resource — connecting an Audience Resolver publisher token to this product — and adds the outcome it enables (pushing content to an AR project's calendar). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like list_audience_resolver_projects, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 a concrete precondition: the token must be hand-minted from the Audience Resolver dashboard first, with no generation available here. That is genuinely actionable guidance, but it does not say when to call this versus related tools or what state the product must already be in.

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