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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is admin-only, that tokens are stored server-side and never returned, and that omitting token preserves the current value when updating. These are meaningful side-effect and security details beyond the schema.

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?

Two crisp sentences with the most important scoping information first: admin-only, create/update behavior, then the id/token nuances. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral contract: creation vs update, admin restriction, and token handling. It could mention that url and name are needed when creating, but the schema already documents those requirements, so the definition is adequately complete.

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 explaining the upsert semantics ('pass id to update, omit to create') and the non-return of tokens, which complements the schema's parameter descriptions. It doesn't add much for url/name/enabled/projectKey, but those are already well-documented 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: create or update a project's external MCP connection. It also clarifies the create-vs-update distinction up front, which differentiates it from read-only siblings like list_mcp_connections.

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?

The description gives direct operational guidance: pass 'id' to update, omit it to create, and omit 'token' to retain the current token. It also notes the admin-only restriction. It stops short of naming alternatives, but the usage conditions are explicit and sufficient.

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