propose_add_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important human-in-the-loop trait (a proposal must be reviewed by the user before resolve_proposal), but says nothing about whether the proposal persists, what happens on rejection, or side effects on the target record.

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 zero redundancy; the action and its scope are front-loaded and the required follow-up call is appended where it belongs.

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?

With five fully documented required parameters, no output schema, and a proposal lifecycle referenced via resolve_proposal, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: the fate of a proposal (approval/rejection/persistence) is left unstated.

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 every parameter (including the {variant} url template and the inbound/outbound enum) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Propose adding a connector') plus concrete protocol examples (MQTT, KNX) and scopes it to 'an existing record'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearby propose_add_record or propose_modify_* siblings, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow step: present the proposal to the user before calling resolve_proposal. That gives real ordering guidance, but there are no when-not conditions or comparisons to alternative proposal tools.

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