add_connections_to_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the constraint that the group must be 'existing'; it says nothing about what happens to connections already present, whether duplicates error or are ignored, or why the non-idempotent hint matters for repeated calls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the informational gaps noted in other dimensions rather than reflecting deliberate density.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. Missing is any statement of duplicate-handling behavior or failure conditions, which an agent would want before invoking a non-idempotent write against an existing group.

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%, with 'id' documented as 'Group ID' and 'connectionIds' as 'Connection IDs to add', so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description confirms the connections belong to an account group but adds no format, batching limits, or ID-source detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (add) and resource (social connections) applied to a scoped target (an existing account group), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling mutations like create_account_group or remove_connections_from_group. It doesn't explicitly name the inverse sibling, but the verb contrast is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (the group must pre-exist, implied but not stated as a condition), and no reference to alternatives such as remove_connections_from_group or create_account_group. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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