add_folder_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the folder is registered but does not disclose persistence, permissions, side effects on the project, idempotency, or whether the folder path must already exist.

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 description is a single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no wasted text and is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a registration/mutation tool with no annotations, it remains incomplete regarding usage context and behavioral effects.

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 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema as 'Folder path' and 'Display name.' The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb-plus-resource phrase, 'Register a folder with the project,' and adds the practical outcome 'so its data is easy to browse.' It clearly identifies the action, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_folder or search_data.

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 implies a context, making folder data easy to browse, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell an agent when to choose add_folder_connection over nearby data-access tools.

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