Connect provider

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: priority=0 renumbers existing providers, omitted priority preserves a reconnected provider's place, and primary=true is a deprecated alias that promotes priority 0 while primary=false is a no-op. It does not mention idempotency behavior despite having an idempotency_key parameter, which is the main gap.

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 core action is front-loaded and the dense semicolon-clauses are packed with provider-specific detail rather than filler. It is long but nearly every clause conveys a distinct fact; slightly more structure (e.g., separating the priority rules) would improve scanability.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutating tool with a nested credentials object, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description supplies the provider-specific knowledge an agent could not infer from the schema. Missing pieces are secondary: idempotency semantics, what enabled/cost_per_check do, and any return/verification guidance.

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 only 30% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description must compensate, and it does for credentials.login, credentials.api_key, credentials.endpoint, priority, and primary. However, top-level login, secret, enabled, cost_per_check, and idempotency_key are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Partial compensation, not full.

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+resource: 'Connect or update credentials for a project provider,' then enumerates the valid provider ids by category (dataforseo/serpapi vs ga4/gsc/plausible). It is clearly distinguished from credential-unrelated siblings such as update_provider_settings and disconnect_provider by focusing on credentials, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: which providers accept which credential fields, when credentials.login defaults to the project domain, when endpoint is needed, and how priority behaves for reconnected vs new providers. It does not state when to prefer this over test_provider_connection or update_provider_settings, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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