Verify connection

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the provider call is a read-only identity check, the result is recorded, and the secret is never returned. The readOnlyHint=false (it persists a status) is reconciled by the description calling out the read-only provider call plus the recorded result, and the not_eligible outcome is disclosed.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the trigger, the return shape, and the edge-case outcome. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers action, trigger, side effect, return-shape caveat (never the secret), and the not_eligible failure mode. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already pointing to list_connections or check_setup as the id source. The description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: check a saved connection against its provider and record the result. It also clarifies the identity call is read-only, which cleanly separates it from list_connections and check_setup.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use it when a node fails with what looks like an authentication error, and explains why access might have since been revoked or narrowed. It also names the exclusion cases (providers that can't be checked alone, owner passkey protection) and the resulting not_eligible status.

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