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 key behaviors: eliminating boilerplate, including optional stubs, and uploading files to Core after scaffolding. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on failure, or any authentication/permission requirements, leaving some uncertainty.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses four sentences to convey necessary details: boilerplate reduction, fill-in step, ui_capable option, and upload path. It is slightly dense with parentheticals but remains concise and each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers what files are created, the optional ui_capable behavior, the relationship to plugin creation, and the upload mechanism. With no output schema and no annotations, it provides a reasonable level of completeness for a scaffolding tool, though it could be improved by stating prerequisites or error behavior.

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 the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds context around ui_capable and connector_id but largely repeats what the schema says, so it provides baseline rather than enhanced semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scaffold a new MCP connector with server.js + package.json + README.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning plugin files are handled separately (ateam_create_plugin) and that uploads follow the same path as ateam_upload_connector.

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 implies this is for creating a new connector from scratch, stating you then 'fill in the tool implementations.' It references an alternative for plugin files (ateam_create_plugin) and clarifies the upload relationship with ateam_upload_connector, though it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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