solver_create_source_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: the tool takes an opaque handoff_intent_id, never credential material, and newly created connections start disabled until a test passes. It does not cover idempotency, error cases, or response behavior, but the lifecycle and security context are valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences deliver the action, endpoint, key parameter constraint, security note, and workflow ordering with no filler or repetition. The most important decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

The workflow context is strong, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should also explain what the tool returns, prerequisites in more detail, and the meaning of the remaining parameters. It is adequate for a human who already knows the domain, but leaves notable gaps for an autonomous agent.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it only meaningfully explains handoff_intent_id ('opaque', 'never credential material'). The meanings of display_name, source_id, and auth_scheme are left to inference from names and enum values, and source_scope's schema description is the only detailed parameter guidance.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Bind a source connection for your provider key/account from a COMPLETED handoff intent.' It also names the exact endpoint and makes the tool's role in the handoff-to-connection workflow clear, distinguishing it from list, start, poll, test, and sync siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool is appropriate: from a COMPLETED handoff intent, not as a credential submission step. It also names the following steps ('disabled until solver_test_source_connection passes; deployments then come from solver_sync_source_deployments'), giving clear routing information across sibling tools.

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