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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these but also does not add extra context (e.g., side effects on scheduling or existing runs). Given the annotations cover the basics, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 a single, succinct sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core action and purpose.

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 simple enable action with one parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does and its purpose, and the schema covers the parameter. Given the low complexity, no additional context is strictly necessary, though mentioning alternatives would improve completeness.

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?

The only parameter, connector_id, is already described in the schema as 'UUID of the connector.' The tool description adds no further meaning or constraints, so it relies entirely on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Enable a connector') and its purpose ('for scheduling'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connector_disable. However, it could be more specific about the exact effect of enabling, such as making the connector available for scheduled runs.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connector_disable. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., configuring the connector first) or contrast with related actions, leaving the usage context largely implicit.

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