connect_to_site

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavior ('Automatically discovers the tenant and resolves the site'), which is real value beyond the name. However it says nothing about what 'connecting' statefully entails, auth requirements, or side effects relative to the disconnect sibling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the resolution behavior and the usage trigger. No wasted text.

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 single-parameter connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, automatic tenant discovery, and when to use it. It lacks any note on auth or connection lifecycle, but is otherwise complete for the call itself.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is fully documented with format and an example, so the schema already does the work. The description adds only that the URL implicitly determines the tenant, which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Connect to') and resource ('SharePoint site from its URL'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_site_by_url by emphasizing the connection/starting-point role rather than a pure lookup.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this as the starting point when a user provides a SharePoint URL,' giving clear context for invocation. No exclusions or named alternatives against get_site_by_url or search_sites, so it stops short of a 5.

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