mt_add_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a connection but doesn't cover critical behaviors: whether this is a write operation requiring permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the core action. It has zero waste and is appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place, but it's borderline under-specified.

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 complexity (a write operation with 5 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'MT connection' is, the expected return values, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with significant context, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., id, name, endpoint, username, password). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 '新しいMT接続を追加します' (Adds a new MT connection) clearly states the action (adds) and resource (MT connection), but it's vague about what an 'MT connection' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like mt_test_connection or mt_remove_connection. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the connection's nature or context.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like mt_list_connections for viewing connections or mt_remove_connection for deletion. Usage is implied only by the action 'adds,' with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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