Add a domain connection

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

Annotations already give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: no sign-in, execution under the server's Windows user, and that user's permissions governing every call. It also discloses the alias-overwrite side effect. Missing only things like failure modes when the domain is unreachable.

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 resource, then credentials model, then mode guidance, then the overwrite caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the pieces an agent must know before calling: auth identity, permission inheritance, mode selection, and overwrite behavior. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and mode/alias/domain descriptions already exist in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond it by defining the read-vs-write consequence of 'mode' and the replace-on-collision semantics of 'alias', which the schema does not state.

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 ('Add an Active Directory domain by its DNS name'), including the identifying key used to add it. It clearly reads as the inverse of the sibling connection_remove and distinct from connections_list. No ambiguity about what the tool acts on.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to choose the mode: a read connection refuses every mutation, so choose write only when changes are actually wanted. It also warns that an existing alias is replaced. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., connection_remove for undo), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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