growsurf_get_integration_connect_link

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: that the tool only returns a link and does not perform the connection, that the connection happens in the dashboard, that the link targets a specific campaign and can be overridden with campaignId. It also clarifies program type limitations. This goes well beyond the annotations and paints a complete picture of the tool's behavior without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, immediately follows with usage guidance and examples, then covers limitations and parameter nuances. Every sentence earns its place, front-loading the most critical information. Despite its length, it remains focused and easy to scan, which is appropriate for a nuanced tool.

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 two parameters, rich schema, and complex domain, the description is complete. It explains the return value (a url to open), the default campaign behavior, how to target a different program, and program-specific constraints. There is an output schema (not shown) but the description already covers the key output detail. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, but the description enriches them further. It warns that some integration keys are camelCase and gives examples, and it adds the crucial constraint that certain integrations are only applicable to referral or affiliate programs. This information is not present in the schema and directly impacts correct usage.

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's function: returning a dashboard link that opens a specific integration's connect panel. It identifies the exact resource (integration connect panel in the Program Editor) and the verb (return). It distinguishes from potential alternatives by noting this is the dashboard way, not via API, and mentions the excepted integrations. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever a user says they want to connect an integration' with concrete examples. It also states what the tool does not do (cannot link accounts on the user's behalf) and notes the alternative (handing the link to the user). It even provides edge-case restrictions (referral vs affiliate programs). This is comprehensive and removes guesswork.

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