ateam_create_connector

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 scaffolding creates files, reduces boilerplate, and that files are uploaded to Core via the same path as ateam_upload_connector. It explains the effect of setting ui_capable=true. While it doesn't explicitly state that it modifies remote state or require prerequisites (e.g., solution existence), it provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 extremely concise—three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then explain the benefit and optional capability. Every sentence adds unique value with no wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core behavior, parameter semantics, and post-scaffolding outcome. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operation.

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 covers all four parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning: connector_id 'becomes the directory name', name 'defaults to connector_id', ui_capable 'include ui.listPlugins/ui.getPlugin handler stubs'. This enhances the schema descriptions without redundancy.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Scaffold a new MCP connector') and the specific resources created (server.js, package.json, README). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ateam_create_plugin and ateam_upload_connector by referencing them in the context of plugin stubs and file upload.

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 explains when to use the tool (scaffolding new connectors), what it eliminates (50% boilerplate), and the developer's follow-up task ('fill in the tool implementations'). It also provides conditional guidance for ui_capable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other tools beyond the mentioned siblings.

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