Describe a connector's operations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it may read from cache or fetch live, it caches under .cs-catalog/<environment>/connectors/<name>.json, and it marks MCP-capable connectors. It does not cover authentication/error behavior in depth, but the read/cache nature is sufficiently transparent for a non-destructive 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by workflow context and caching path. Every sentence adds useful information and the structure makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately apparent.

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 lack of an output schema, it is helpful that the description states what return information may appear (operationId, parameters, response fields, MCP-capability). The tool has 8 parameters, but the schema already describes most; the description adds the key high-level context and caching path while leaving only minor optional-parameter semantics unstated.

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?

The schema already describes most parameters well, and the description adds some useful meaning to refresh by explaining caching. However, the description does not itself clarify includeInternal, operation, or environmentId beyond the schema text, and refresh itself has no schema description, so the parameter meaning is only partially reinforced.

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 names the exact resource (a connector's OpenAPI definition), the operation (fetch or read from cache), and the concrete output (operations with operationId, parameters, response fields, MCP-capability flag). It also anchors the tool in the workflow by saying it is exactly what cs_add_tool needs, making it distinguishable from the many other describe/list tools in this family.

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 explicitly says the tool is what cs_add_tool needs and is used by cs_validate, so an agent knows when it is relevant. It does not go one step further to give exclusions, such as 'for just listing connector names, use cs_list_connectors instead', but the downstream context is still clear.

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