platform_connect

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

Describes authentication flow in detail: stored credentials → device auth with automatic browser opening and polling, single call, no two-phase. Discloses credential storage, safe WebSocket replacement on new authToken, environment change restrictions, and successful response metadata. Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden and exceeds it.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence adds critical context. Front-loads purpose and usage order, then covers auth, edge cases, and error handling without redundancy. Each clause earns its place.

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?

Comprehensive for a connection tool with 6 params, no output schema, and no annotations. Covers prerequisites, authentication flow, failure handling, environment selection, and response metadata, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds valuable context beyond schema: authToken replacement behavior, serverUrl environment selection fallback, force requirement for environment changes, and deprecation guidance. This pushes above baseline but not to 5 since schema already covers core semantics.

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 action: connect to the server WebSocket for Arch debugging. Clearly identifies it as the first step before other Arch debug tools, distinguishing it from siblings like debug_list_active_sessions or debug_traces.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first before using other Arch debug tools.' Provides conditions for force usage, environment change rejection, and tells the agent to ask the user for environment if not specified. Also forbids alternative approaches like REST calls.

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