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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, meaning re-enabling an already-enabled connector is safe. The description adds context about the tool being non-destructive and that it only affects the current user. It also notes the authentication fallback path, which is helpful beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence serves a purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a related tool for authentication. It could mention the typical success/error response format, but for a basic enable action this is sufficient.

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% with clear examples in the description. The description adds value by listing common connector IDs (shopify, tiktok, etc.) that the agent can use as examples, going beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('re-show') and resource ('previously hidden connector's tools') and provides concrete examples like 'enable Shopify' or 'show TikTok again'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like disable_connector or close_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?

The description explicitly states to use this tool when the user wants to restore a paused connector, and provides example phrases. It also mentions that if authentication is needed, get_connector_status should be used instead. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if the connector is already enabled).

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