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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile: write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds only the precision constraint that only exact selected candidates are connected, no extras. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what happens on partial selection, so value beyond annotations is modest.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it is quite thin relative to the tool's complexity and required inputs.

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 explained, but for a 4-required-parameter write tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. Candidate selection semantics and how flowId, brandId, and candidateIds interact are left entirely unexplained.

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 (brandId, flowId, candidateIds, idempotencyKey), so the schema provides no guidance and the description must compensate. It gives no meaning to any parameter name, especially the critical candidateIds/flowId relationship, so the gap remains unaddressed.

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+resource ('connect ... provider account candidates') and adds a scope qualifier ('only the exact ... selected by the user'). This contrasts with the sibling connect_channel, which appears to be a general connection entry point, though that distinction is implied rather than named.

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 phrase 'selected by the user in the connection card' implies the workflow context in which this tool applies, but it never states when to use this versus connect_channel or list_connected_accounts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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