connector_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a complete pipeline: plugin-gate whitelist validation (with rejection outside whitelist), persistence to config/connectors.json with tenant isolation and duplicate-name rejection, and audit trail. This goes well beyond the schema, revealing side effects and failure conditions.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action, then uses arrows to efficiently present the pipeline (whitelist → persistence → audit) and ends with the connector_list reference. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

It covers the admission process, persistence, audit, failure conditions, and sibling tool routing. The main gap is the absence of a stated return value/response format, which is more relevant since there is no output schema; the description nevertheless provides enough context for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the source whitelist requirement and names uniqueness constraints, but it adds no new semantics for name, kind, tenant, endpoint, or capabilities beyond what the schema already describes.

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 clearly states the action and resource: '注册第三方连接器' (register third-party connector). It also differentiates from tool registration ('与工具注册分列') and points to connector_list for listing, giving a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishing it from siblings like connector_list and device_register.

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 explicitly separates this from tool registration and directs listing to connector_list, which are clear usage hints. However, it doesn't provide a detailed conditional for when to choose this over other resource-registration tools (e.g., device_register, model_register) beyond the connector resource type, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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