connect_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses the human-mediated auth flow, that a link plus 6-digit code is returned, that the human must sign in or sign up with that email, and the idempotency-ish behavior of repeat calls. It does not mention code expiry or failure modes when the email doesn't match, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the return shape and the follow-up step. The parenthetical capability list adds concrete value rather than filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and what the agent must do next. It only omits edge cases such as code expiry, mismatched email, or what state the sandbox endpoints are restored to.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with the schema already explaining the sign-in constraint. The description adds that the human may 'sign in or sign up' with the email, giving a bit of meaning beyond the schema, but the schema does the bulk of the work (baseline 4).

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 ('Connect this agent to a human's webhooks.cc account') and immediately names the benefit (full tool set, keeping sandbox endpoints), which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish this entry-point tool from the endpoint/request siblings purely from the text.

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?

Spells out the full operating sequence: show link and code to the human, then call wait_for_connection. It also names the sibling to invoke next and discloses re-invocation behavior ('Calling again gives a new code'), leaving nothing to inference.

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