conduyt_fromk_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses vendor verification before storage, specific error outcomes (422 key_rejected/key_scope, 502 vendor_unavailable), and that nothing is stored on failure. It also explains exactly what disconnect destroys (key, signing secret, lines, contact links) and the functional impact on FromK.ai workflow steps.

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 purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by verification behavior, error codes, disconnect consequences, and permission requirements. The description is dense but every clause adds operational value for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 two-parameter credential-management tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers credentials, scopes, vendor verification, failure modes, destructive disconnect effects, and required permissions. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and understand the consequences.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by specifying the key format (fk_…) and required scopes (numbers:read, contacts:write, messages:send). It also reinforces that disconnect forgets not just the key but the signing secret, lines, and contact links, which is more specific than the schema's 'forget everything FromK.ai' phrasing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: connecting, replacing, or disconnecting the account's FromK.ai workspace API key. It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like fromk_status, fromk_lines, and fromk_webhook_secret by naming the exact endpoint and credential being managed.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool for connecting or replacing a key and how to trigger the disconnect path with disconnect: true, including the consequence that workflow steps stop sending. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as fromk_status for checking existing configuration, but the operational context is well established.

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