Connect a channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behaviors: repeat calls replace the old link, and the call is asynchronous (returns a URL to authorize plus an id to poll). It omits auth/permission requirements, link expiry, and what a failed or already-pending connect looks like.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the replace semantics and return contract. Slightly dense with the parenthetical, but no sentence is wasted.

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, and the description compensates by naming exactly what comes back (link URL, connection id) and how to continue via connection_status. Only error/failure and permission behavior remain uncovered.

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 100%, so channel, country, and timezone are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — it never mentions country/timezone effects (proxy exit, local daytime sending), so baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource ('Start linking a messaging account ... to Parley') and immediately disambiguates the multi-account case ('another WhatsApp number is just another connect'), which separates it from list_connections and connection_status without needing the schema.

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?

Clearly implies this is the entry point for linking and names the follow-up tool ('poll with connection_status'), plus explains the repeat-invocation semantics. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions (e.g. whether an existing channel must exist or what to do on failure), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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