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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and open-world; the description adds that args pass straight through, that it only works on connectors exposing an MCP server with an enabled connection, and that it returns either the provider's tool result or {success:false,error} on failure or grant denial. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond them, though it doesn't enumerate provider-side side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core definition, then the key exclusion, then a numbered workflow and constraints. It is longer than average, but the extra length is all operational guidance for an open-world invocation tool, with no repetitive 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 high-complexity dynamic tool, it covers purpose, when to use and not use, prerequisites, the exact upstream calls for parameters, and the failure return shape; the output schema handles return-value details. The only remaining details, such as workspace_id and idempotency_key behavior, are already fully documented in the input schema.

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 schema already documents all five parameters; the description adds the crucial provenance: workspace_connector_id comes off an enabled row from well_list_connectors, tool must be one of the names from well_list_connector_tools, and args are passed straight through from that tool's live schema. This turns the parameters into an executable sequence.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Run one tool on a connected provider's own MCP server' on behalf of the workspace connection. It differentiates itself from the large sibling set by explicitly saying it is not for reading financial data and routing those reads to well_query_records, so an agent can distinguish it from list/query tools.

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 an explicit when: only for actions the user explicitly asked to take on the provider, and an explicit when-not: not for reading synced financial data, which should go to well_query_records instead. The numbered workflow names well_list_connectors and well_list_connector_tools as prerequisites, and the final conditions (MCP-server connector, enabled connection) tell the agent when the tool cannot be used.

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