df_create_git_connection

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and do not describe side effects. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states the operation writes to DataForge, requires an admin API key, and that credentials are encrypted and never returned. This discloses permission and security behavior beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences with zero filler. The most important signal ('WRITES TO DATAFORGE') is front-loaded, followed by the tool's purpose, permission requirement, and credential security. Every sentence 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?

For a complex 8-parameter operation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (purpose, permissions, credential handling) but leaves gaps: it doesn't mention settings behavior, idempotency key usage, or what happens on duplicate names. The schema partially covers authentication and idempotency, but the description doesn't integrate these details. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 only 25%, leaving most of the 8 parameters undocumented. The description itself does not explain any parameters (e.g., name, platform, repository_url, branch, authentication), and it does not compensate for the low schema coverage. The only parameter-related context comes from inline schema descriptions for authentication and idempotency_key, not from the tool description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Register a Git connection for the company.' The leading 'WRITES TO DATAFORGE' clarifies this is a write operation, and the verb 'register' clearly indicates creation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like df_update_git_connection or df_delete_git_connection. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context: registering a Git connection for the company, plus a prerequisite ('Requires a company administrator API key'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke this tool versus read-only or update/delete siblings.

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