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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by explaining the downstream effect ('Forms in the project then deliver through that account'), but it omits the destructive detail an agent cares about: that this overwrites/replaces the previously selected account and what happens to deliveries already configured.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the consequence. The parenthetical prerequisite is slightly buried mid-sentence rather than leading, 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. What remains thin is parameter selection detail and the overwrite semantics of re-selecting a provider's account, but for a 2-parameter tool the description is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does partially: it explains that connectionId is a connected account sourced from fillo_list_connections and that provider scopes the choice, but it does not define the connectionId format or clarify that the provider value must match the connection's provider.

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 concrete verb and resource in plain terms: point the project at one of the workspace's connected accounts for a given provider. It also distinguishes itself from the nearby siblings fillo_list_connections (the source of the choice) and fillo_remove_connection_account / fillo_disconnect_integration (the inverse operations). An agent can pick this tool over its siblings without opening either 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?

The parenthetical '(from fillo_list_connections)' implies the prerequisite that connection IDs come from the list tool, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus disconnect/remove, nor whether a provider can hold only one selected connection. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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