Create KB Sync Connector-Credential Pair

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation (readOnlyHint=false) with open-world effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context by clarifying the action is a linking operation with an optional knowledge base. However, it does not disclose whether creation triggers synchronization, uniqueness constraints, or failure modes. This is acceptable given annotation coverage but not richly transparent.

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, concise sentence of 14 words that front-loads the action and key objects. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple with a well-covered schema, but the description omits that the connector, credential, and optional rag must already exist, and does not mention how to obtain their IDs (e.g., via sibling list tools). This is a minor but meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the bar is baseline 3. The description reinforces the relationship between connector_id and credential_id and notes the optional knowledge base, but adds no additional constraints or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') and identifies the resource as a 'connector-credential pair,' clearly stating the linking relationship. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lyzr_kbsync_connector_create and lyzr_kbsync_credential_create by focusing on the pair object.

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 implies the tool is used to link an existing connector and credential, but it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., that connector_id and credential_id must already exist) or mention alternatives among siblings. There is no guidance on when to use this versus creating connectors/credentials separately.

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