perform_connector_action

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'perform connector actions' which hints at mutation, but does not disclose required permissions, success/failure behavior, synchronicity, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though a list of actions would improve clarity without significant bloat.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not described) and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it. It lacks information on expected results, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameters. It lists example actions ('start, stop, restart') but does not specify valid values for the 'action' parameter, nor does it describe 'connector_name'. The description adds minimal value over the bare 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 identifies the tool as performing connector actions like start, stop, restart, using a verb+resource structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_connector_config or the many get_* tools, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 implies usage for state-changing operations on connectors but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when not to use. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative advice.

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