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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the operation is asynchronous, whether re-running duplicates or replaces existing discovered schemas, what the nested 'params' object can contain, or that results must be retrieved via connector_discover_results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its extreme terseness means it earns low marks on completeness rather than on structure.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation trigger with an untyped nested params object and no output schema, the description should explain the async lifecycle (poll connector_discover_status, read connector_discover_results) and the effect on existing schemas. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess the call-then-poll contract.

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%: connector_id is documented as a UUID and params as optional discovery parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; the opaque nested 'params' object remains unspecified in both places.

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 gives a specific verb ('Trigger') and a specific resource ('schema/metadata discovery for a connector'), so an agent can tell it apart from connector_test or connector_run. It does not explicitly distinguish it from the closely named connector_discover_status and connector_discover_results siblings, which a single clause could have fixed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus connector_discover_status, connector_discover_results, or connector_test, nor any prerequisite about the connector needing to be enabled/configured first. The 'Trigger' verb hints at initiation but the required follow-up polling workflow is left entirely implicit.

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