connect_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: what the write accomplishes downstream (subsequent checks get attributed to the dashboard), where the credential is persisted (~/.appledger/key), and a trust constraint on provenance. It still doesn't say what the call returns on success or failure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then acquisition instructions, then an Args block — well structured and short. Minor redundancy: the al_ prefix is stated twice (body and Args), which is the only real waste.

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?

One required param, no output schema, annotations covering idempotency and side-effect class — the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it and how to source the argument. Only the return value/success signal is unaddressed, which is a small gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0% — the schema only says "key: string" — so the description carries the burden and does so well: it gives the prefix format (al_), where the user obtains the key, and a hard provenance rule. It stops short of validation details (length, malformed-key behavior), so not a full 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Save a connection key") and states the concrete effect: future checks from this computer appear in the user's AppLedger dashboard. It doesn't reference any sibling by name, but the purpose is unmistakable and doesn't overlap with preview_upload, check_app, or scanner_status.

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?

"Only call this with a key the user gave you" is an explicit when-not/constraint, and the preamble implies the triggering context (the user wants their checks visible in the dashboard). It doesn't spell out a full when-to-use scenario or name alternatives, but the exclusion is clear.

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