Pay: connect

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond them — account creation, a browser-based hosted flow, mandatory completion before payments work, and interactive prompting for business type/country/email. It omits idempotency behavior (what happens on re-run if the account already exists) and failure/partial-completion handling, keeping it below 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?

Well front-loaded: the core action leads, then mechanics, then prerequisites. There is mild redundancy between the opening sentence ('Set up a Stripe Connect account and start onboarding') and the second ('Creates the project's Stripe Connect account...'), which could be merged without loss.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: the agent knows the tool is interactive, browser-based, blocking, and must be preceded by pay_status. Only re-run/idempotency behavior is left unaddressed.

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 schema declares zero parameters with additionalProperties=false, so the baseline is 4. The description slightly exceeds that by noting the tool interactively prompts for business type, country, and email, telling the agent that inputs are collected procedurally rather than passed as arguments.

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: 'Set up a Stripe Connect account and start onboarding', then details the concrete mechanism ('opens Stripe's hosted onboarding page in a browser'). This clearly separates it from siblings like pay_status, pay_plans_create, and pay_methods, which concern status/plans/payment methods rather than Connect account provisioning.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('Check `pay_status` first') and a precondition ('which must be finished before plans can take card payments'), plus the environmental requirement of an interactive terminal. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g., what to do if an account already exists), so it falls just short of a 5.

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