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

Goes well beyond the lone readOnlyHint=false annotation by describing three distinct outcome branches: no-sign-in connectors are added immediately, sign-in connectors return sign_in_url and must not be reported connected until finished, and already-added ones return the connector page. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries distinct operational meaning (gating rule, two branches, edge case). Slightly dense/run-on in places but nothing is wasted.

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?

Covers the happy path, the sign-in branch, and the already-added edge case for a one-parameter mutation tool. With no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive and how to react.

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 100% and the single 'name' param is already documented as coming from list_connectors. The description reinforces the source but adds no 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 (add/connect a connector) and ties the input to list_connectors, which cleanly separates it from the enumeration sibling. An agent immediately knows this performs the connect action rather than listing.

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?

Explicitly gates invocation: 'Call it only when the user asked to connect that service,' and directs the agent to list_connectors for valid names. Both the when-to-use condition and the source of the argument are spelled out.

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