brc_confirm_company_connection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions it never exposes connection credentials, which is important. However, it does not explain what 'claims' means in terms of side effects (e.g., state changes) or what happens on success/failure. The term 'claims' is ambiguous.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and include a security promise. Every sentence adds value without wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context adequately. However, it does not describe what the tool returns or the effect of 'claiming' a code, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'code', so the schema already describes it well. The description adds context about the code's origin (success page) but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema's description.

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 tool claims a completed secure Red connection code, indicating its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like brc_start_company_connection by referencing a specific post-submission step. The verb 'claims' is somewhat abstract but the context clarifies it.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: after the user has submitted the secure connection page and returns with the confirmation code. It provides an example scenario (MCP session changed). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear.

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