connect_source

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so the 'Register' action's mutating nature is already clear. The description adds meaningful credential-handling guidance (env vars/config, never direct connection strings), which goes beyond the annotation and helps avoid security misuse.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by a critical security constraint. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, enum, no output schema), the description covers the registration types and credential requirements. The source_config_path behavior is described in the schema, and the security note fills a practical gap, though it does not mention return values or failure handling.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that credentials must never be passed directly, which affects how url and source_config_path should be used. This is extra semantic context not present in the 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 registers a data source, enumerating supported types (CSV, Postgres, REST). 'Register' is a specific verb that distinguishes it from siblings like list_sources and query, which operate on already-registered sources.

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 use when adding a new data source and clarifies credential requirements (env vars or YAML config). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling context makes this reasonably inferable.

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