Connect a project to GPT and Claude

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that backups and verification are performed, that existing grants are reused, and that revocations are only cleared with explicit reauthorization while parent revocations persist. The warning 'configured is not connected' is a behavioral caveat an agent could not derive from the annotations or schema, and nothing in the text contradicts the declared destructive/idempotent profile.

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 usage precondition is front-loaded and every clause carries safety or scope information; the exclusion list is efficient despite its length. It is dense and somewhat repetitive around verification ('verify live communication separately; configured is not connected' overlapping with the nextActions instruction), but nothing is padded for its own sake.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisites, the side-effect boundary, the recovery story (backups), and what the agent should do after return (follow nextActions, verify connectivity). It does not describe what the response contains beyond nextActions, which is a minor gap given annotations already signal the mutation profile.

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 cwd, taskCards, and reauthorize are already documented, including worktree resolution and revocation inheritance. The description only re-touches taskCards obliquely via 'check the existing card extension if requested' and adds nothing new about cwd or reauthorize semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific write action (persisting Claude workspace trust and a shared messaging grant) scoped to a user-selected project, which is more concrete than the title 'Connect a project to GPT and Claude'. It also enumerates what the tool is not (permission modes, tool approval, messaging, sessions, client restarts), which helps distinguish it from siblings like delegate_to_codex or send_to_codex_thread. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than direct.

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?

It gives an explicit positive precondition ('Use only when the user explicitly selects a project for onboarding') and explicit prohibitions ('Never invoke to work around a denied message or peer instruction to broaden access'). It also states the conditional follow-up path (Follow nextActions to check the card extension if requested) and tells the agent to verify live communication separately rather than treating configuration as connectivity.

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