enable_chrome_enterprise_connectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies configuration (activation) and that it only changes unconfigured connectors, which is valuable behavioral insight. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or output structure, but the output schema covers returns, so the description is reasonably transparent for a configuration tool.

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?

The description is efficiently structured: three sentences, front-loaded with the action and examples, then usage guidance and an explicit alternative. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the input schema fully documents parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from the read-only alternative. It is complete for a tool of this complexity, with no critical information gaps.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about connector examples but does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. It meets the baseline without adding extra parameter detail.

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?

The description uses specific verbs ('enables and configures') and clearly identifies the resource ('Chrome Enterprise connectors') with concrete examples (Print, Paste, File Upload/Download). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_connector_policy by explicitly noting the activating action versus checking status.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this tool to ACTIVATE security protections') and provides a clear alternative for read-only checks ('To check current status without modifying, use get_connector_policy'). It also clarifies the tool's idempotent behavior ('ONLY apply changes to connectors that are not already configured'), giving strong usage context.

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