connect_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a persistent side effect ('Saves the connection info'), but it does not mention whether it validates the credentials, overwrites an existing named instance, or how the stored connection affects future calls. This is a moderate gap for a state-changing setup tool.

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 short, focused sentences communicate the core action and the persistent side effect with no filler. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple three-parameter configuration tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but without annotations it leaves ambiguity around whether 'connect' actively tests the connection or merely stores credentials. It also omits what happens if the same name is reused or whether the API key is stored securely, so an agent cannot fully anticipate side effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only refers to them as 'connection info' without adding format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 action 'Connect to a Memos instance' and the side effect 'Saves the connection info for future use,' identifying the resource and purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_instances and disconnect_instance, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when establishing a connection and persisting it for subsequent operations. It does not explicitly address alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to identify this as a setup/configuration action rather than a data operation.

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