connector_protect_patch

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

Discloses that 'confirm' must be True to execute and 'dry_run' provides preview, but lacks details on mutation effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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?

Description is concise with clear Args and Returns sections. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameters without unnecessary 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description leaves out details about how the proxy works, the meaning of 'path', the role of 'settings', and error handling. The missing schema parameter further reduces completeness.

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?

Adds meaning to schema parameters (e.g., console_id as host identifier, path as sub-path) beyond their names. However, it introduces a 'settings' parameter not in the schema, reducing clarity and consistency.

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 it proxies a PATCH request to the Protect Application, distinguishing it from GET/POST/DELETE/PUT siblings. However, it lists a 'settings' parameter not present in the input schema, causing minor confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connector_protect_put or connector_protect_post. The description implies it's for PATCH operations but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.

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