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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new scope context beyond them: the write is catalog metadata only and confers no account connection or access grant, which prevents a serious misinterpretation of what is being mutated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover safety and scope. However, for a creation tool with 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves the agent to infer what 'category' to pick, which is a real 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% for both parameters. The description says nothing about the 'name' constraint (1-120 chars) or the meaning/selection criteria for the 'category' enum. The enum values are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but the description does no compensating work.

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 action on a specific resource: naming an external service in Revensi's connector catalog. This separates it from list_connectors and remove_connector, though it never explicitly says 'create/add an entry' as a verb, relying on the title for that.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to...' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'This does not connect an account or grant access' rules out a plausible mis-selection. It does not name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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