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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is largely covered. The description adds valuable context with workspace-owner authorization and the exclusion of the current chat's connection, but it does not clarify whether unspecified scopes are preserved or reset.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the core action and affected scope dimensions come first, followed by exclusions and authorization. Every phrase adds information without repetition.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the definition supplies the essential scope meanings, authorization rule, and current-connection exclusion. It is nearly complete, but the partial-update behavior and relationship to granular scope-setting siblings remain unstated.

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 only 17%, so the description carries most of the burden. It does this well by mapping env, public paths, egress, can_create, and projects to their meanings and allowed values, including 'null = all' for projects. The main gap is omission semantics when only some scope parameters are supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change what a connection token may do,' then enumerates the exact scope dimensions affected. An agent can immediately distinguish this from list_connections, get_egress_policy, or revoke_connection.

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?

It gives two clear usage constraints: 'Not for the connection this chat uses' and 'Workspace owners only.' It does not name alternatives such as set_egress_policy or set_public_paths, so an agent may not know whether this composite tool is preferred over the granular setters.

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