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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with replace semantics, empty-list clearing, and authorization prerequisites that go beyond the annotations. It does not explain the role of 'revision' (likely optimistic concurrency / conflict handling), which is a meaningful omission for a destructive replace operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mutation and its scope, then prerequisites, then semantics, then exclusions. Efficient, though the middle sentence about individually exposed functions is more context than instruction.

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?

Has annotations and an output schema, so return values and safety profile are covered. Still, for a destructive, non-idempotent, four-required-parameter mutation, the unexplained 'revision' and 'direction' semantics leave a gap that matters 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% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds meaning for connector_ids (empty list removes access); number_id, direction (enum), and especially revision are unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at required preconditions for a destructive write.

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 ('Replace'), a specific resource ('external connections available to one active voice agent'), and a scope ('for future calls'). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_connector, connect_connector, add_common_connector, and update_agent, especially via the closing 'Does not invoke tools or change unrelated agent settings.'

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 a real prerequisite workflow ('Review get_connector_tools and obtain authorization for those capabilities first') and a clear edge case ('An empty connector_ids list removes access'). It implies full-replace semantics rather than additive, which separates it from add_common_connector, but never names an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition beyond the settings exclusion.

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