create_cms_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two meaningful traits: the required permission scope (cms:manage) and the critical one-time webhook secret return that must be stored externally. It still omits idempotency, whether creation triggers validation, and what happens on duplicate connections.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the operational caveat second. Zero filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

The one-time secret and permission scope are good additions, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. However, for a six-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the absence of any parameter or prerequisite guidance leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be added — and it says nothing about cms_type, project_id, config, webhook_url, or webhook_events. The opaque anyOf `config` object and the webhook_* fields in particular go entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ("Create a CMS connection") so it is clearly distinct from siblings like list_cms_connections, test_cms_connection, and delete_cms_connection. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a project must exist first), or which alternative applies for related needs such as testing an existing connection. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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