Attach a REST catalog to a DataLens Trino cluster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the call "returns the operation" (implying an async operation object rather than the attached catalog), and that the endpoint is experimental and unverified. It still omits permission requirements and side effects on existing catalogs.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is a metadata caveat rather than tool behavior, but it is brief and does not obscure the primary statement.

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 2-parameter required-only mutation with no output schema, the description at least signals the operation-return behavior. It nonetheless leaves unanswered whether attaching requires existing REST catalog registration, whether the attach is reversible, and what errors to expect, which matters for an experimental write endpoint.

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 both cluster_id and catalog.catalogId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail about either parameter, so the 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 ("Attach") and resource ("REST catalog to a Trino cluster"), so the action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling datalens_trinoclusters_catalog_delete, which is the natural inverse operation an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. cluster must exist / be in a particular state), and no mention of the delete sibling. The only contextual note is a provenance disclaimer about the endpoint being untested, which is not usage guidance.

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