Integrations: connect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive creation call. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — that omission of api_key triggers a hidden-input prompt — but says nothing about the resulting connection's lifecycle, whether it is validated (integrations_test exists for that), or tenant-vs-user visibility beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the credential mechanism leads and the fallback behavior is parenthetically subordinate. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the annotations plus schema carry most of the burden, and the description covers the interactive prompt edge case. It is still thin on post-call expectations — whether the connection is immediately usable or needs integrations_test/enable — which an agent staging a multi-step integration setup would want.

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 (provider, api_key, name, user_connection) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the API-key parameter and its prompt fallback but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 (connect) and resource (provider) plus the credential mechanism (API key), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, name the sibling it differs from — integrations_oauth_connect and integrations_oauth_callback_url sit right next to it in the list, and the phrase 'with an API key' only implicitly separates the two flows.

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 parenthetical hints at the interaction model when no key is supplied, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to the OAuth-based connect tools. Usage is only inferable from the word 'API key'.

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