create_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'Returns compact confirmation by default — set verbose=true for full response.' This clarifies the response format and the effect of the verbose flag, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It does not disclose potential side effects like initial sync or permissions, but provides useful behavior beyond the basic create action.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes: the first states the action, the second provides guidance on discovering config and return behavior.

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 7 parameters, a nested config object, and no output schema, the description adequately orients the user by referencing get_connector_metadata for config discovery and explaining the default vs verbose response. It does not detail every parameter, but the schema covers those, and the description supplies the necessary context for successful usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to approach service-specific config via get_connector_metadata and by clarifying the verbose parameter behavior ('set verbose=true for full response'). This goes beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create a new Fivetran connection (connector)' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by pointing to get_connector_metadata for discovery, and the name itself contrasts with update/delete/list tools.

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?

The description guides the user to use get_connector_metadata to discover connector types and required config before creating, providing a clear alternative context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for updating existing connections), so it lacks full exclusions.

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