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

The description substantially enriches the annotations: it discloses one-time validity, 5-minute expiry, invalidation of previous codes, possession-as-grant semantics, privacy restrictions on display, and non-permanence. These all align with destructiveHint=true and add crucial operational detail not available in 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 purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence earns its place by covering security, invalidation, permanence, and consent. Despite its length, the density is appropriate for a code-generation tool with security implications.

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 sensitive nature and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when it is allowed, side effects, and handling constraints. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and handle the result appropriately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter burden. It explains confirm=true as the user's explicit request and warns against inferring consent, giving the boolean practical meaning beyond its const:true schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('private, one-time 5-minute code') with a clear outcome ('link the user's other PeopleMCP client to this owner'). It also differentiates from the sibling redeem_connection_code by describing creation rather than redemption.

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?

It gives explicit conditions: only on the user's explicit request, confirm=true, with personal OAuth publish access, not operator access, and never infer consent from profile content. It does not name an alternative tool, but the boundary is clear enough for call selection.

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