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

It discloses important behavioral context: the created connector may be 'active' or 'staged for operator approval', which goes beyond the annotations. The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is destructive, so the description adds the approval/activation nuance without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 deliver the core purpose, the key format constraint, and the post-import result behavior. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence adds distinct information.

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?

The description is adequate for understanding the tool's basic operation and result, but it leaves gaps around parameter meanings and prerequisites for a 4-parameter creation tool. There is no output schema, so the description's brief mention of active/staged status is helpful but not a full substitute for more explicit behavioral or parameter detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly clarifies openapi_url as a public JSON URL. It does not explain connector_key, label, or base_url beyond their names, and it fails to specify the required identifier semantics or how the optional fields are used.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Import'), the resource ('public OpenAPI JSON URL'), and the output ('a Klarefi verification connector'). It also adds format constraints and result state. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_connector tool, relying mostly on the tool name to make that distinction.

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 provides concrete usage constraints: the URL must be public, the spec must be JSON, and YAML must be converted first. It tells the agent when this tool is appropriate based on spec format, though it does not call out alternatives such as create_connector or delete_connector.

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