Create an integration connection

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

Annotations establish this is a write that is not destructive; the description goes further by disclosing that secret parameters are obfuscated in the response and that OAuth integrations return a `redirectUrl` and need a user's credential. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, missing only permissions and error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two constraints that actually affect a call. No wasted words.

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 create tool with an output schema, annotations, and mostly-covered params, the description supplies the key non-obvious behavior (authSchema linkage, secret obfuscation, OAuth branch). A brief note on permissions or name collisions would complete it.

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?

With 71% schema coverage the schema documents most fields, but the description adds real meaning by tying `parameters` to the integration's `authSchema` and explaining the secret-obfuscation and OAuth/redirectUrl behavior for that field. callbackPath remains undocumented in both places.

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 (Create) and resource (a connection for an integration) with scope (caller's workspace), which cleanly separates it from the get/update/delete connection siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the 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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite workflow: `parameters` must match the integration's `authSchema`, as returned by Get an integration, which points the agent at a sibling tool first. It also flags the OAuth branch, though it offers no explicit when-not or duplicate-handling guidance.

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