generate_fix_connect_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool generates a URL for repair, but fails to mention idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence, concise and without redundant information. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing key details about parameters and behavior.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not visible), the description could skip return values, but it fails to explain parameter meaning or usage context. For a tool with two required parameters and no schema coverage, the description is insufficient for correct use.

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%. The parameters 'customer_id' and 'institution_login_id' are not described in the description or schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or format.

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 action ('Generate'), the resource ('Fix Data Connect URL'), and the purpose ('repair a broken connection'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'generate_connect_url' by specifying 'Fix' and 'repair', indicating a specific use case.

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 when to use (to repair a broken connection) but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'generate_connect_url' exist, but no explicit differentiation or exclusion criteria are given.

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