connect_provider_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action (connects/registers) without describing side effects, permissions required, reversibility, error behavior, or impact on existing connections. The mention of 'currently 3DOS' provides limited context but is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise (a few sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a structured parameter list. No unnecessary information or repetition.

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 the purpose and all parameters, but lacks information on return values (no output schema), error handling, prerequisites (e.g., configured provider account), and behavioral context. Given the absence of annotations and the complexity of the sibling toolset, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for safe usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter with examples and meaning (e.g., name as human-readable, location as geographic, capabilities as optional dict, price_per_gram as price). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making the parameters highly clear.

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 states the tool's purpose: connecting a local printer to a provider account (integration path) and registering it with 3DOS. It uses specific verbs ('connect', 'register') and identifies the resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'register_printer' by highlighting the provider integration aspect.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'register_printer' or other printer connection tools). It only states the purpose without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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