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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only. The description adds only that registration requires being signed in and where events are routed, but leaves unexplained what happens on register/deliver, the role of secret/signature, and side effects of event delivery — meaningful gaps for a write-capable tool.

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 text is short but truncated mid-sentence ('or to your...'), so it fails to deliver a complete thought. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 7-parameter, multi-mode tool with no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description is far too threadbare. An agent would have to guess at the semantics of two of three modes and five of seven parameters.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description bears full responsibility. It hints at 'space' and 'connector' and the 'register' mode but says nothing about body, secret, signature, or how deliver/inbox use the same fields.

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 begins to explain the 'register' mode (a hook for a connector, events routed to a space or to your...) but is truncated mid-sentence and never covers the 'deliver' or 'inbox' modes declared in the schema. An agent cannot determine what the tool does as a whole from this fragment.

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?

'register (signed in)' implies an auth prerequisite for one mode, but there is no guidance on when to use which mode, no alternatives among the many integration_* siblings, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the enum values.

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