update_connector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that connection_config is 'merged, not replaced' and that enabled can be left empty to keep the current state. However, it does not mention authorization needs, error handling, or side effects like whether the update is atomic.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a bullet-style list of arguments. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters well. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, it lacks mention of preconditions (e.g., connector must exist) and error conditions, which would make it more complete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so clearly: connector_id, connection_config (JSON, merged), poll_config (JSON), enabled (true/false or leave empty). This adds significant value over the schema's bare titles and types.

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 starts with 'Update a connector's configuration,' clearly indicating the verb (update) and resource (connector). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_connector, delete_connector, and poll_connector, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the connector must exist before updating, or that create_connector should be used for new connectors. The description lacks usage context.

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