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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds one piece of extra context — that enabling affects scheduling — but says nothing about required permissions, connector state prerequisites, or whether re-enabling an enabled connector is a no-op.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the behavioral gaps unfilled.

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 one-parameter toggle with full annotations and schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate. It lacks the state prerequisite information an agent would need to avoid calling enable on an unconfigured connector.

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% with a single required connector_id already documented as a UUID. The description adds no format, example, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("Enable a connector") plus a scoping qualifier ("for scheduling"), which is enough to distinguish it from connector_disable and connector_status. It stops short of describing what enabling actually changes.

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 enable versus disable, whether the connector must be configured or tested first (connector_test, connector_test_config exist as siblings), or what preconditions cause failure. The only hint is the phrase "for scheduling."

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