Set a workspace app credential for a platform (write-only values; session only)

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: values are write-only, the effect is "session only", and there is explicitly no server-side dry run, so the confirm path returns a preview rather than a real validation. Annotations already declare the write and idempotent profile, and the description stays consistent with them; it stops short of stating what happens to pre-existing credential fields on overwrite or what permissions are required.

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 packed sentences: purpose and endpoint first, then the write-gating constraint. Nothing is redundant and the most safety-critical fact (confirm required) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 credential-writing tool with a free-form nested body object, no output schema, and 25% of parameters undocumented, the description omits the things an agent most needs: which body keys are required per platform, whether a set replaces or merges existing values, and what "session only" implies for persistence.

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 75% and the schema already explains confirm, idempotencyKey and the write-only body, so the description largely restates structured content. It adds no meaning about which body field names the platform expects or how the platform enum value maps to the stored credential.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Set a workspace app credential for a platform", reinforced by the concrete endpoint PUT /v1/app-credentials/{platform}. It is clearly distinguishable from appCredentials_list and appCredentials_remove by verb alone, though it never names those siblings.

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 only usage condition given is the mechanical gate: "not executed unless confirm: true". There is no guidance on when to prefer this over connections_createWithCredentials or connections_create, which also appear to store credentials, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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