create_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It states the tool creates a draft but does not disclose permissions needed, side effects, or what happens after creation (e.g., how to publish). The warning about placeholders is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides an essential warning. Every word 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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks explanation of the draft status, subsequent steps, required permissions, or any error conditions. It only covers the creation action and authConfig warning.

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 covers the only parameter 'fields' with 100% description coverage. The description adds critical semantics: 'Do NOT put real credentials in authConfig — use placeholders; a human fills secrets in Axonity.' This provides meaningful guidance beyond 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 clearly states 'Create a connector draft (a tool of type 'connector')'. It specifies the action (create), resource (connector), and state (draft), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_connector or execute_stored_connector.

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?

While it warns about not putting real credentials in authConfig, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a new draft vs update an existing one). No prerequisites or context are given.

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