create_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only reveals that credentials are configured later. It does not mention required inputs, side effects, return value, or whether the connection is usable before configuration, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses the second sentence to add a valuable reference to the next step.

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?

Although the tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is still too incomplete: it omits parameter semantics, does not clarify what a connection consists of, and gives no indication of what happens upon creation. There is no annotation context to fill the gaps.

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 provides no descriptions for app_id or display_name, and the description does not explain either parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but instead ignores parameter meaning entirely.

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 creates a connection, and the second sentence differentiates it from the sibling configure_connection by noting credentials are handled separately. It is specific enough, though 'Create a connection' closely mirrors the tool name.

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 provides an explicit usage sequence: first create the connection, then use configure_connection for credentials. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, though it does not mention alternatives like listing or deleting connections.

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