gateway.auth_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'store credentials' without addressing persistence, security, overwrite behavior, or the implications of the two auth modes (api_key vs url_elicitation). This is a significant gap for a credential-management tool.

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, the first for purpose and the second for usage context. No wasted words; it is highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 schema is rich with descriptions and enums, but the description does not explain the relationship between auth modes and parameters like elicitation_id and consent_acknowledged. It also doesn't tell the agent what to expect after invoking (no output schema). It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with this complexity.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with individual descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already handles that sufficiently.

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 the tool's function: storing credentials for a server and making them available to provisioning. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing the gateway.provision missing-authentication scenario, which differentiates it from other connection/server management tools.

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?

It provides a specific, actionable when-to-use condition: 'Use this when gateway.provision reports missing authentication.' This gives clear context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of the most complete guidance.

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