connect_account

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the call opens Google's sign-in page in the user's browser and requires human interaction before the flow can be completed. It does not mention whether the call blocks or returns immediately, timeout/retry behavior, or what happens if the user cancels, which are relevant for an interactive auth flow.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the required next step; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter interactive OAuth starter with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does and what must follow. The only gap is failure/interruption handling, which an agent would likely need in practice.

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%, with both 'email' and 'label' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about how email is validated or how label is used in later calls.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Starts connecting a Gmail account') and immediately names the follow-up sibling, finish_connect_account, so an agent can distinguish the two halves of the flow without opening either schema.

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 gives clear sequencing guidance: call this first, then call finish_connect_account once the user has signed in. It does not say what to do if the account is already connected (e.g., use list_accounts or check_accounts instead) or how to handle an abandoned sign-in, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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