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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: secrets pass through the conversation, the answer never echoes values, missing required slots cause nothing to be created, and duplicate/org-owned entries short-circuit. The one soft spot is the dedup statement ("no second connector is made"), which reads as idempotent behavior while idempotentHint is set to false; that mild tension keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and workflow position are front-loaded, and most sentences carry real information (security cost, failure modes, alternate flows). It is long for a 3-parameter tool and restates the "enter it on the dashboard instead" alternative across paragraphs, plus duplicates schema text, so it is efficient rather than maximally tight.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states what the answer reports (filled slot names and never their values, still-needed slots when creation fails, entry name plus Integrations page for browser-auth entries, already-there for existing entries). Combined with the parameter and secret-handling guidance and the account prerequisite, 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% and the schema's own descriptions already cover the entry-name matching rule, the secrets slot-to-value contract, and the org_name default, so the description largely restates structured data. It adds only marginal framing value (e.g., "pass each slot the entry asks for in secrets"). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Create an organization connector from a Valet catalog entry") and positions it precisely in a workflow: it is the step after list_catalog_connectors and before attach_connector. It also carves out what is explicitly NOT this tool (browser/OAuth/Composio entries), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like attach_connector, get_connector, and reauthorize_connector without opening another schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (after list_catalog_connectors located the entry for the product the user named), explicit when-not (browser-authorizing entries go to the Integrations page instead), and explicit no-op cases (an entry the org already has is reported as already there). It also states the prerequisite that a Valet account must be connected, and names an alternative flow for users who do not want secrets to transit the conversation.

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