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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds the operationally critical facts: a strong password is generated and displayed exactly once, and the caller must hand it over securely. It also discloses the auth requirement (workspace owners only) and the prerequisite enablement of password sign-in, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the one-time credential warning, then prerequisites and permissions. Every sentence carries distinct, necessary information with no repetition of the title.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permission gate, prerequisite, and the fact that a generated password is returned once. It leaves unstated what happens when the email already exists (error vs. duplicate) and does not restate idempotency behavior.

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 50%: project_id is documented inline and email is constrained by format/pattern, though its field description is absent. The description only loosely ties 'connector project' to project_id and 'email/password account' to email, adding no format or validation meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Create an email/password account for a connector project'), which cleanly separates it from reset_connector_account_password, list_connector_accounts, and remove_connector_account without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives real preconditions: password sign-in must already be enabled, and the caller must be a workspace owner. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., reset_connector_account_password for existing accounts), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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