finish_connect_account

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not carry: a blocking wait of up to 45 seconds and a poll-again-on-timeout pattern. However, it says nothing about failure modes (what happens if the user never signs in or the email is wrong), whether repeat calls are safe, or what a successful completion looks like. The annotations only cover the read/write/destructive profile.

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 tight sentences, zero waste. The action and the timing constraint are front-loaded, and the retry instruction follows immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the operation and the non-obvious blocking/retry behavior. The main omission is the meaning of the email parameter and any success/failure signaling, which keeps it from being complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'email', with zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent must guess whether it is the email of the account being connected, the signed-in user, or an identifier. This is the clearest gap in the definition.

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 ('finishes connecting an account') plus the triggering condition ('after the user signed in'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling connect_account by being the completion step, but never names that sibling or states the ordering explicitly, so an agent must infer the relationship.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (after the user has signed in) and explicit retry guidance ('if the user is not done yet, call it again'). It stops short of naming connect_account as the prerequisite or saying what to do if the account was never initiated, which would have made it a 5.

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