Connect a non-OAuth platform with write-only credentials (201)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the genuinely important behavioral fact that the write is not executed unless confirm: true and that there is no server-side dry run, which materially changes how an agent must call it. The 'write-only credentials' phrasing also hints that stored secrets are not readable back, though it is not spelled out.

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 short sentences with the operation and the safety gate front-loaded; nothing superfluous. The '(201)' and duplicated endpoint path are mild noise but not obscuring.

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 nested-body creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation gate but leaves the agent guessing about the shape of the credentials map per platform and about what the preview response contains. Adequate for a safe call, not complete for a correct one.

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 67%, so the schema already documents confirm and idempotencyKey. The description reinforces the confirm gate and adds 'write-only' meaning to the credentials object, but says nothing about what credential keys a given platform expects, which is the hardest part of the freeform credentials field.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: connect a non-OAuth platform using write-only credentials, plus the underlying endpoint POST /v1/connections/credentials. The 'non-OAuth' qualifier implicitly separates it from connections_oauthStart and connections_create, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 scope 'non-OAuth platform' implies when to use it, and the confirm gate implies a preview-first workflow, but there is no explicit statement like 'use this instead of connections_oauthStart for platforms without OAuth' nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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