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

Annotations only declare write/openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: sync is one-way into agentleFS and repeats, connector-owned paths refuse direct edits, connect returns a browser authorisation link, and vote is one-per-person shared with agents. These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then action-labelled clauses ('connect:', 'sync:', 'vote:') that keep a dense 11-param tool readable. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on action block is heavy and could be trimmed slightly.

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 three actions, 11 parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the action dispatch semantics, side-effect behavior, and auth flow needed to call it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping parameters to actions (repo_owner/repo_name/branch for GitHub, folder_id for Drive, location as the destination folder, account as the connected account ref). It adds action-scoping that helps disambiguate the many optional params.

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 ('Connect GitHub or Google Drive and sync from it') and enumerates the three actions (connect, sync, vote) with their distinct objects. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'browse' (action=documents lists folders already in agentleFS), so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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?

Each action line gives clear when-to-use context: connect is for an EXTERNAL account, not a folder already in agentleFS, and it redirects to browse for the latter; sync points a repo/folder at a location here; vote is for a connector that does not exist yet. No explicit exclusions for sync/vote beyond their definitions, so slightly short of a full 5.

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