connector_protect_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: 'confirm: Must be True to execute' and 'dry_run: Preview without sending'. However, for a mutation (PATCH) it says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or which settings are affected, so the disclosure is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by a short args list and return note. The only waste is the phantom 'settings' entry, which is a correctness issue rather than bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return note is acceptable. But for an unannotated mutation proxy with 6 params at 17% coverage, the description should say more about prerequisites and effect; the non-existent 'settings' param and the unmentioned 'controller' param leave the agent under-informed.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate and largely attempts to. It adds real meaning for confirm and dry_run ('Must be True to execute', 'Preview without sending'), but it lists a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema and omits the schema's 'controller' parameter, creating a mismatch that undermines the added value.

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 and resource ('Proxy a PATCH request to the Protect Application via Cloud Connector'), which clearly identifies it as the PATCH variant among the connector_protect_get/post/put/delete siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling to use under which condition, leaving differentiation to the HTTP-method convention.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as connector_protect_put or connector_protect_post. The only contextual hint is the confirm/dry_run gating, which governs execution but not tool selection.

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