Connect: start

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, consistent with creating a connect session. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the returned artifacts and reassures 'No keys are involved', which is important for a wallet-connect tool. It stops short of stating auth requirements or token lifetime.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return payload, then the critical constraint. No filler; every sentence adds information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the return values (token, nonce, connect URL), covering the main return contract. The only shortfall is the undocumented 'src' parameter and absence of next-step guidance toward connect_exchange.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It fully specifies the returnUrl format constraint and implies 'game' selects the game, but the third parameter 'src' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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 verb and resource ('Start an SCDO Wallet Connect flow for a game') and even names the return payload (token, nonce, connect URL). It is distinguishable from sibling connect_exchange as the initiating step, though it never explicitly references that sibling.

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?

Provides one concrete usage constraint — returnUrl must be an scdo.com.au /games/ or /play/ URL — which is genuinely helpful. But it gives no guidance on when to use this versus connect_exchange or other wallet tools, and no prerequisites or flow sequencing.

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