update_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'update' but never clarifies whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, whether null means 'unchanged' or 'clear this field' (all 11 optional params are nullable with default null), or whether special permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentence with the resource and affected aspects front-loaded. Efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than elaboration given the tool's 13-parameter complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a 13-parameter mutation with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition should explain partial-update/null semantics and required identifier relationships; it does neither.

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 0% across 13 parameters. The description's 'endpoints, caption or style' loosely maps to start/end_item_id, caption, and the stroke/color/font parameters, but it leaves color, text_orientation, stroke caps, and the null-vs-omit semantics completely unexplained. It adds only marginal meaning over bare parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (connector), and enumerates the affected aspects: endpoints, caption, style. An agent can distinguish it from get_connector, delete_connector, and create_connector. It stops short of explaining partial-update behavior, but the core purpose 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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., that board_id and connector_id must reference existing objects), and no exclusions. The name implies it's the mutation counterpart to create/get, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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