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

Discloses important behavioral side effects beyond annotations: replacing config replaces encrypted credentials and resets status to untested, permission failure yields access_scope_denied, unknown ids yield not_found, and the operation returns the updated connector. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and does not contradict idempotentHint=true.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler. The purpose and partial-update semantics are front-loaded, and permissions, error conditions, side effects, follow-up steps, and alternatives are all packed into a compact, readable block.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the return value, prerequisites, error cases, side effects, and the recommended pre- and post-update workflow. There is no critical missing information for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that at least one field must be supplied, a constraint not enforced by the schema, and explaining that the config parameter replaces encrypted credentials and resets health status. This is meaningful parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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: 'Partially update one saved connector'. It also clarifies the partial-update semantics ('only the supplied fields change'), which distinguishes it from create_connector, delete_connector, and test_connector without requiring an agent to infer the tool's role.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions (manage permission, at least one field), error behavior (access_scope_denied, not_found), and points to preview_test_connector as the recommended validation step before applying a new config. It also instructs the agent to call test_connector again after a config change, giving clear post-update guidance.

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