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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a structural limitation (OAuth connectors cannot be added here) and the dependency on list_connector_types, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the new connector is active immediately (a sibling set_connector_active exists), validation failures, or duplicate handling.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the config prerequisite, then the hard exclusion. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: where to get valid types and config fields, and which connectors are unsupported. It falls short only on post-creation state (active vs inactive) and error behavior, which an agent might need given the sibling set_connector_active tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including that 'type' comes from list_connector_types and that 'config' is keyed by config field names. The description reinforces the list_connector_types lookup but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Route a form's submissions') and enumerates concrete destination types (email, webhook, Slack, Discord, Airtable, HubSpot, Telegram). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_connectors, remove_connector, and test_connector.

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 prerequisite ('Get the config fields from list_connector_types') and an explicit exclusion ('OAuth connectors (Google Sheets, Notion) must be added in the dashboard'). It routes the agent to the correct sibling tool for the config payload and rules out an unsupported path.

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