add_connector

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

Annotations are present but all false, so the description carries a moderate burden. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: process launched without a shell, minimal environment, namespaced tools as <connector>__<tool>, and the allow_connectors prerequisite. These details help the agent predict side effects and operational behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Covers the core purpose, a prerequisite, and important operational details (no shell, minimal env, namespacing). However, it omits parameter behavior and explicit usage distinctions, and with no output schema, the agent has limited understanding of what will be returned or how to handle failures.

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 only 40% (command and inherit_env have descriptions) and the description does not compensate. It provides high-level context about the process environment but never explains key parameters like name, args, or enabled. The agent must rely on sparse schema descriptions for most parameters.

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 action ('Configure') on a specific resource ('external stdio MCP server'). Differentiates from sibling tools that list/remove/refresh connectors by clearly implying this creates/configures one.

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?

Implies usage via 'Configure an external stdio MCP server' and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires allow_connectors'), but does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like list_connectors, remove_connector, or refresh_connectors. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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