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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it describes the two outcomes (no sign-in → added immediately, tools ready; sign-in → returns `sign_in_url`), instructs the agent not to claim connection before browser completion, and covers the already-added case returning the connector's page. This is rich state-transition disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by behavioral cases. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct outcome (no-sign-in, sign-in, already-added); minor tightening possible but no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical flows an agent must handle: immediate add, deferred sign-in with URL handoff, and idempotent already-added behavior. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the `name` parameter is already documented including the 'as list_connectors reported it' example. The description restates 'by its name' without adding format or matching rules 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 ('Start connecting') and resource ('one connector from list_connectors'), and anchors the resource to the sibling that enumerates it. An agent can distinguish it from list_connectors or disconnect_integration without opening a schema.

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 gating condition: 'Call it only when the user asked to connect that service.' It also implicitly routes discovery to list_connectors ('from list_connectors, by its name'). Both when-to-use and the alternative discovery path are spelled out.

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