connector_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the secure brokering of access tokens, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or other potential behaviors. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose + security, path format, prerequisite. No wasted words, information front-loaded.

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 purpose, usage, and parameters well, but lacks any mention of the response format or typical return values. Since no output schema exists, the description should have hinted at what the tool returns (e.g., raw HTTP response).

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the path format (relative to base URL), the security model, and the prerequisite to get connector_id. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the extra context justifies a 4.

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 makes an HTTP request to a third-party platform on behalf of the user, with a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('HTTP request'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the context (workflow connector) and referencing the prerequisite tool 'list_workflow_connectors'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (after listing connectors) and how to format the path (relative, not full URL). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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