Integrations: connect

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

Annotations mark it non-readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: it prompts for the key when missing, stores it encrypted server-side, creates either a project-wide or user-scoped connection, and prints its id. It does not say what happens if a connection already exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four densely packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the OAuth exclusion before moving to storage semantics and follow-up. Every sentence carries information, though the density borders on overload.

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?

Covers the preconditions (auth type lookup via integrations_get), the action, the side effects (encrypted storage, connection scope), the return (prints its id), and the next step (integrations_test). No output schema exists, and the description still explains what is produced.

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 all four parameters (name, api_key, provider, user_connection) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces api_key and user_connection usage but adds no syntax or default details beyond the structured fields, 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 + resource (connect to a provider) and immediately scopes it to api_key providers, routing the agent away from OAuth. An agent can distinguish this from integrations_oauth_connect/configure and integrations_test without opening any 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?

Explicit when-not guidance ('OAuth providers fail here and need integrations_oauth_configure') names the alternative tool. It also states the follow-up step ('check the connection with integrations_test') and points to integrations_get for determining auth type.

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