update_connection_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does communicate the merge-vs-replace mode and explicitly warns against storing credentials. But it does not disclose consequences of 'replace' (e.g., whether it wipes existing metadata), permissions, or side effects, which are important for a mutating tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the credential warning earns its place as a safety note.

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?

Given five parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks clarification of the identifiers, the effect of replace mode on existing data, and any return or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying 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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It adds meaning to 'metadata' and 'mode,' but environment, connectionId, and providerConfigKey remain explained only by their names. This is insufficient compensation for five parameters with no schema-level descriptions.

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 ('Merge or replace') and the resource ('structured connection metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_connection_end_user and replace_connection_tags, which operate on different connection aspects.

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 gives a relevant boundary with 'Do not store credentials here,' telling the agent what not to put in this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_connection_context or replace_connection_tags, leaving that inference to the agent.

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