validate_connector_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool mutates state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It also does not hint at the output format despite an output schema existing.

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 short (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one doesn't provide enough 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?

Given the complexity of a validation tool and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the output contains (e.g., errors, warnings) and what validation checks are performed. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed.

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. It only says 'Validate connector configuration' without describing the 'config' parameter's structure, valid formats, or required properties. This adds no meaningful information beyond the parameter name.

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 states the verb 'validate' and resource 'connector configuration', clearly indicating the tool's action. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'perform_connector_action' and various 'get_' tools, though it could be more specific about the validation type (e.g., schema vs. connectivity).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after fetching config definitions or before connector creation. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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