connect_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload (a link and a 6-digit code), that the human must act in a browser, and that repeat calls mint a fresh code. It stops short of stating what happens on failure, whether the code expires, or whether the call blocks, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then next step. Every sentence contributes an actionable fact and none restates the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so precisely (link plus 6-digit code). For a one-parameter OAuth-style handshake tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow up 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% and the single email parameter is already fully documented, including the sign-in identity constraint. The description reinforces this by saying the human 'signs in or signs up with that email,' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so it lands slightly above baseline rather than excelling.

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 scopes what the connection unlocks (full tool set, keeping sandbox endpoints). It also names the follow-up sibling wait_for_connection, so an agent can place this tool in the workflow without opening any 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?

Explicit sequencing is given: call this, show the link and code to the human, then call wait_for_connection. It also pre-empts the re-invocation question by stating 'Calling again gives a new code,' which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would face.

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