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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior; the description adds genuinely new context by confirming the save performs no outbound contact with the connector and no agent assignment, and it imposes a hard safety rule against submitting secrets in chat. It stops short of stating duplicate-name behavior or what the saved object/response contains, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its scope, followed by the safety constraint and then the workflow chain. Dense and largely waste-free, though the opening sentence packs scope, exclusions, and side-effect notes into one long clause stack.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotation profile is reasonably rich. But for a five-required-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the meaning of name, transport, and request_id unaddressed, which is a material gap for correct invocation.

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 five required parameters are undocumented everywhere. The description only obliquely maps authType ('no credentials or standard browser OAuth') and url (the MCP endpoint); name, transport, and especially request_id (a UUID that reads like an idempotency key while idempotentHint is false) get no explanation at all.

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 ('Save a hosted voice-agent MCP connection') plus the exact scope it accepts ('requiring no credentials or standard browser OAuth'). It also names what it explicitly does NOT do (contact the connector, assign agents), which separates it from connect_connector and set_agent_connectors without opening a 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 an explicit when-not and the alternative route ('For API-key or custom OAuth setup, send the user to setup_url from list_connectors'), then a concrete next-step chain: connect_connector for browser authorization and discovery, set_agent_connectors to grant access. Nothing about selecting this tool is left to inference.

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