update_auth_connection

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially known. However the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not clarify whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to unspecified fields, whether secrets are re-encrypted, or what permissions are required. For a 20-param mutation touching tokens and client secrets, this is a significant omission.

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 a single short phrase that is front-loaded only in the sense of being brief. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise: for a complex 20-parameter mutation, the reader gets no actionable detail. The brevity does not earn its place because the content is essentially a title repeated.

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?

Given a 20-parameter mutation with no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the resource, the update semantics, required permissions, side effects, or any parameter meaning. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based on the definition alone.

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 schema contains 20 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description supplies no parameter information whatsoever. The agent receives no explanation of what can be updated, which fields are optional versus required beyond the schema's required list, or how sensitive fields like token, secret_key, client_secret, and password are handled. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Update Workspace Auth Connection' is a verbatim expansion of the tool name and annotation title. It restates what the name already says without adding any differentiating scope, fields, or context relative to siblings like create_auth_connection or delete_auth_connection. This is a tautology per the rubric.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned. An agent cannot tell from this description alone whether to use this tool versus update_secret_route, update_environment_variable, or other update tools. The definition provides zero routing help for a mutation with 20 parameters.

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