Test provider connection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, consistent with a tool that makes outbound calls to provider APIs; no contradiction. The description usefully discloses the success signal ('Connected.' / 'Connected · <detail>.'), but says nothing about failure responses, rate limits, or whether a successful test persists anything.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by provider-specific detail and the success contract. Information-dense with little waste, though the Plausible-specific clause is long for a tool supporting five providers.

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?

Five parameters with a nested credentials object and no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, which it partially does via the success message. Missing: error/failure semantics and the distinction between the top-level and nested credential fields.

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 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains that credentials.login is the Plausible site domain (site_id, defaulting to project domain), credentials.api_key is the Stats API token, and credentials.endpoint is the base URL for self-hosted instances. It leaves the top-level login/secret parameters and their relationship to credentials.login/secret unexplained.

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 and resource: test either raw credentials or the saved provider connection. An agent can tell it apart from connect_provider or update_provider_settings, though the description never names those siblings 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?

It distinguishes the two modes (passed-in credentials vs. saved connection), which implies when each is relevant, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to alternatives like connect_provider or disconnect_provider.

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