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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the credential is validated against the provider BEFORE storing, stored encrypted, and that an initial sync is queued afterward. This conveys the mutation's side effects, though it omits auth/permission needs and any rate limits.

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 core action and side effects are front-loaded, and the args block is information-dense rather than padded. The single run-on args sentence is slightly dense but every clause adds value.

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 5-param mutation with a nested object and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the operation, side effects, and conditional meta requirements. Only minor gaps remain (credential_type values, return value, though output schema is absent).

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains provider (id source), secret, credential_type, label, and meta, including provider-specific meta requirements (OpenRouter admin_key {tracked_key}, Cloudflare {account_id}/{billing_day}). It doesn't specify credential_type's allowed values, leaving a small gap.

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 (connect) and resource (provider) tied to 'THIS project' with a credential, and points to list_available_providers for the id. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_connect_link and sync_connection.

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?

Usage is clearly implied (connect a provider using an id from list_available_providers) and it explicitly restricts secrets to operator-provided keys. It doesn't explicitly contrast against create_connect_link or sync_connection, but the context is clear.

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