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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the verification step against the provider, encrypted storage, that the token is never returned, and that re-connecting rotates the stored token. It omits failure behavior for invalid tokens and any permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and outcome front-loaded and the token-handling caveats following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the key security and mutation semantics an agent needs (encrypted storage, no token return, rotation on re-connect). It does not describe what a successful response contains or error handling for a bad token, leaving a minor gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the token is provider-verified and encrypted, and that re-connecting the same provider rotates the stored credential — which tells the agent provider identifies the connection slot.

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?

Specific verb (connect) plus resource (integration) plus the two supported providers, and it states the downstream benefit (posting report links to PRs/issues). It is clearly distinct from disconnect_integration and list_integrations in the sibling set.

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 implies when this is needed (to let Comma post report links) and notes that re-connecting rotates the token, which is useful usage context. However, it never states prerequisites, who is authorized, or routes the agent to alternatives such as list_integrations to check existing connections.

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