Set up a scheduled SFTP or S3 pull into an existing data spec

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

The description discloses key side effects beyond annotations: it reuses a matching connection if one exists, otherwise creates one, tests it, and creates a trigger. This adds meaningful behavioral context to the openWorldHint and idempotentHint flags, though it doesn't detail duplicate-trigger behavior or auth requirements.

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 purpose, and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by resolving the main protocol ambiguity.

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 complex 11-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, protocol selection, and prerequisite (already-analyzed spec). It doesn't mention return values or what happens if a trigger already exists, but the schema handles remaining parameter details.

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 conditional routing between SFTP and S3 ('Pass hostname for sftp, or roleArn (+ s3Bucket) for aws_s3') and clarifies that specName must be an already-analyzed spec, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'End-to-end setup for...' and names the exact resources involved: SFTP/S3, connection, trigger, and an already-analyzed spec. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like manage_connection and manage_trigger by framing it as a complete setup workflow.

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?

It clearly indicates this is for scheduled pulls into an already-analyzed spec and gives protocol-specific parameter guidance ('Pass hostname for sftp, or roleArn (+ s3Bucket) for aws_s3'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like manage_connection or run_data_job, 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.