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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations. It discloses that secrets passed in travel 'through this conversation' with a 'real cost', that the answer only names slots filled and 'never the values', that duplicate entries are reported without creating a second connector, and that missing required slots result in no creation with the missing slots named. This is rich behavioral context.

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 longer than average but each sentence contributes meaningful operational detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically covers workflow, security, and edge cases. While not terse, the density of useful information earns a high score.

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 mutating connector-creation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers prerequisites, failure modes, security/privacy implications, duplicate handling, unsupported auth flows, and the relationship to sibling tools. It is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema, such as how to handle secrets ('Pass each slot the entry asks for in secrets, as slot name to value'), that a slot the org already holds needs no value, and that a passed key 'passes through this conversation', which is not in 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?

The description explicitly states 'Create an organization connector from a Valet catalog entry' and places it in a workflow: 'It is the step after list_catalog_connectors found the entry...; attach_site_connector then lets a website's pages call it.' This clearly distinguishes it from the catalog-listing and site-attaching 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context ('the step after list_catalog_connectors') and calls out an important exclusion: 'An entry that authorizes in a browser — OAuth, or a Composio toolkit — is not created here' and directs users to the Integrations page instead. It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires connecting a Valet account.'

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