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

Annotations cover safety flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the credential reach for websites vs agents, the auth requirement ('Requires connecting a Valet account'), the no-op behavior on repeat attach, and the app/single-agent restrictions.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect, then layered conditions. It is long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant constraint information; only the security-reach paragraph is slightly expansive.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, scope of effect, restrictions, idempotency, and error behavior ('An app cannot hold a connector yet and the call says so'). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by noting the page calls the connector by its own name and that org_name defaults to the first-joined organization, but nothing beyond the schema's own text.

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 ('Attach an organization connector to a website or agent') and immediately clarifies the effect ('so it can call the connector's tools with the credential Valet holds'). This distinguishes it cleanly from detach_connector, attach_channel, and the other attach_* siblings.

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?

Goes well beyond 'when to use': warns that attaching is a wide grant, tells the agent to attach only what's needed and to check a website's access mode first, and specifies what can/cannot be attached (HTTP MCP server only, no apps yet, single-agent connectors not attachable elsewhere).

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