Test provider connection

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it explains that self-hosted providers take an endpoint, but doesn't disclose what the test actually verifies, whether it fails fast, what network calls occur, or what the response outcome indicates. With openWorldHint=true, more context about side effects would be helpful.

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 waste. The description efficiently conveys the core purpose and the one notable nuance (self-hosted endpoint). It could potentially add a sentence about the difference between passing credentials vs. testing saved, but what's there is lean 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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 5 parameters including a nested credentials object, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions (40% coverage). The description covers the alternate credential entry paths and endpoint nuance but doesn't clarify what happens when no credentials are supplied (saved connection test), success/failure semantics, or which top-level vs. nested parameter combinations are valid. Given the complexity, more completeness would be warranted.

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 description coverage is only 40% (project_id and endpoint have descriptions; login, secret, api_key, credentials, provider_id are partially documented). The description adds value by clarifying that credentials can be passed either as top-level login/secret or via the credentials object, and that endpoint is specifically for self-hosted instances. This meaningfully supplements the sparse schema descriptions, though it doesn't fully explain all parameter relationships.

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 a clear verb+resource combination ('Test provider credentials or the saved provider connection'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose within the provider-management family (siblings like connect_provider, update_provider_settings, set_provider_enabled). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like connect_provider to clarify the boundary, though the testing intent is reasonably clear.

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 mentions self-hosted providers accepting an optional credentials.endpoint base URL, which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. connect_provider or update_provider_settings, nor does it explain what happens without credentials (does it test the saved connection?). Usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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