build_connection_convention

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. 'Suggested' hints that the tool does not apply changes, but the description never states that it is non-persistent, read-only, or side-effect free, and it says nothing about authentication or failure behavior.

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, direct sentence with no filler and the core output is front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the lack of usage and parameter detail captured in other dimensions.

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?

Despite having an output schema, an agent cannot safely call this tool: there is no parameter guidance, no usage context, and no behavioral guarantee beyond the word 'suggested.' For a six-parameter tool with no annotations, a one-sentence description is materially incomplete.

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% and the description maps no parameters to the suggested output. An agent is left to infer the meaning and format of environment, providerConfigKey, principal, ownerKind, purpose, and oauthAppOwner from their names alone.

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 specific verb ('Build') and names a concrete output: 'a suggested connection_id, tags, and metadata object for a managed connection.' It is clear about the resource and the fact that this is a suggestion, which helps separate it from apply_connection_convention, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as apply_connection_convention, describe_connection_convention, or audit_connection_conventions. The single sentence gives no context about preconditions or intended workflow.

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