connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key side effect: 'All subsequent tool calls in this session use the new identity,' which warns the agent that the operation changes session state. It omits possible failure modes or permission checks, but the core behavioral impact is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: a trigger sentence, four illustrative examples, and one next-steps note. Each example line earns its place by clarifying a distinct mode, and there is no filler.

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 tool with five optional parameters, four modes, and no annotations, the description covers the main usage patterns, the persistent session side effect, and the status default. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is already accounted for elsewhere; only edge cases like failed auth or privilege errors are missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the as_ enum. The description adds value by demonstrating valid parameter combinations per mode (superuser with email/password, user with collection/email/password, impersonate with user_id), which is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'USE WHEN you need to authenticate or check the current session identity,' clearly naming the action (authenticate/check) and resource (session identity). It does not explicitly distance itself from sibling tools like manage_auth, but the examples make its session-level role evident.

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 'USE WHEN' clause gives a concrete trigger: needing authentication or identity checking. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the conditions for use are clear.

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