verify_connected_site_script

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

Annotations are present but the description adds behavioral context: it explains that the tool updates the script installation status in the returned record. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, clarifying that the operation is not read-only and modifies state. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences plus Args/Returns sections) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

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 simplicity, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it (after create_connected_site), what it returns (updated record), and how to get the required parameter. An output schema exists, so return values don't need further elaboration.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful detail for the required parameter 'connected_site_id' (explaining its purpose and how to obtain it). The optional 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving some gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds necessary context but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Verify that the Mailchimp tracking script is correctly installed on a connected site.' It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (connected site script), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_connected_site' and 'get_connected_site' by specifying the workflow step.

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?

Explicit guidelines are provided: 'Run after installing the script returned by create_connected_site' and 'Use get_connected_site to check the current installation status instead.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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