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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something and returns information if successful, which implies mutation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what 'successful' entails. For a creation tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise at two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds important behavioral context about the return value. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and the success condition but lacks crucial context about authentication, error handling, connector types (managed vs. custom), or how the creation affects the system. The agent must rely heavily on the schema for operational details.

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 schema description coverage is 80%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how connectorConfig interacts with clusterId) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 action ('Create a new connector') and resource ('connector'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete-connector' and 'list-connectors' by specifying creation rather than deletion or listing. However, it doesn't differentiate from other creation tools like 'create-topics' or 'create-flink-statement' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing cluster or environment IDs), when creation is appropriate versus using existing connectors, or how it differs from other creation tools like 'create-topics'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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