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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context about the post-call flow ('some connectors need one more choice ... the result says so and links there'), but says nothing about what the call changes, whether an existing connection is replaced, or any auth requirement — notable gaps for a destructive tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, followed by the parameter source and then the post-call behavior. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers what the result can contain and links the follow-up step. Combined with the tool's three required params, the main remaining gap is the absence of any statement about what the call mutates, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 coverage is 67%; connection_id provenance ('From list-connectors') is already in the schema, and connector has its own description. The description adds no meaning for site_id and does not clarify the relationship between connector and connection_id, so it merely matches the schema baseline.

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 ('use this when the user wants one of their WebTwizz sites to use an account they already connected') and names concrete examples (Stripe, Supabase, GitHub). It is clearly distinguishable from list-connectors and get-connector-overview, which it references for the id.

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 clear triggering condition ('when the user wants ... to use an account they already connected') and routes the agent to list-connectors for the required connection_id. It does not state when-not to use it or explicitly name a competing sibling tool, so it stops 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.