connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the async approval flow, the ~1 minute wait, and the re-call pattern, but is silent on permissions required, what account linking grants, what happens on repeated calls (new code each time?), and error/expiry 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?

Two compact sentences that lead with the purpose and then the fallback procedure. No filler, though the retry sentence is dense and could be slightly clearer about success detection.

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?

For a no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema auth tool, the description covers the mechanics but omits how the agent knows the connection succeeded or failed, and never cross-references a natural follow-up like status. Adequate but with clear gaps for an authentication flow.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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 concrete verb and target: connect the assistant to a ResumeState account, and names the artifacts it produces (a short approval code and a link). The purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like resume or list_lanes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional for the retry path ('if it doesn't finish within about a minute, approve at the link and call connect again'), which is genuinely actionable. It does not, however, say when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as handoff or status, so alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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