snap_connect

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

Annotations only mark this as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds the important substance — a human must open a returned link and approve, credentials are persisted on this machine, a restart is required, and despite readOnlyHint=false no ads are modified. The human-in-the-loop and restart requirements are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the three steps in order; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated. It is a single dense paragraph, though, so the numbered steps would scan faster as separate lines rather than semicolon-chained prose.

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 stateful two-parameter connection tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what each call returns in outline, what is persisted locally, when the flow is complete, and the restart requirement. Nothing an agent needs to drive the sequence correctly is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it mostly does: redirected_url is defined as the address the browser landed on after approval, and ad_account_id as the selection of an account from the listing returned in step 2. It does not mention the identifier's character/length constraints or that redirected_url is capped, but the semantic role of both parameters is clear.

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: 'Connect this server to a Snapchat ad account, from inside the chat.' This is unmistakably the auth/setup tool, distinct from the many snap_* tools that operate on campaigns, creatives or audiences, and the 'inside the chat' phrasing signals it is a local bootstrap operation rather than an API data call.

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 an explicit three-step sequence with the exact condition for each call: no arguments first, redirected_url second, ad_account_id third. It also states the terminal condition ('then the app must be restarted'), so the agent knows when the flow is finished rather than looping.

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