ads_connect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: re-targeting is 'control-class' because it changes which machine every later write hits. That side-effect disclosure is real value. It omits that re-targeting likely requires the confirm_token the schema exposes.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the highest-value caveat. No filler; a slight tightening of the parenthetical would be the only improvement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive, non-idempotent control operation the description should say whether a confirmation/confirm_token is required and what happens on failure. That gap is meaningful for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It ably explains ams_net_id formats ('5.12.34.56.1.1', 'local', None) and the 851 port meaning, but leaves ip_address and confirm_token completely 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?

(Re)connect to a target' states the verb and resource clearly and could not be confused with read-oriented siblings like ads_read or ads_status. It does not, however, differentiate itself from ads_discover or ads_add_route_to_plc, which also concern target/routing topology.

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 implies when to call it (reconnect, optionally re-target) and gives useful defaults ('None = keep current'), but never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool for changing targets. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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