update_connector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic fetching of connector details for validation, only valid properties updated, invalid ones reported, and special handling for 'receiveinterval' with cron syntax. It omits certain details like auth requirements or side effects, but for this tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 well-structured and purposeful: a clear opening statement, then validation behavior, a special-format note, and practical examples. Every sentence earns its place without excessive length or fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the update behavior, property validation, special formatting, and common property examples. No critical gaps remain.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), the description goes beyond by explaining the flat object structure, where to find property names (get_connector response), and provides concrete examples for different connector types (REST/SFTP, AS2). This significantly enriches parameter understanding.

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 ('Update an existing Arc connector's configuration') with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like create_connector and delete_connector by focusing on updating an existing connector and even references validating against the connector 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 implies usage by saying 'existing' and explains the validation behavior that helps the agent know when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_connector or copy_connector, yet the context is clear enough.

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