conduyt_zoom_connect

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: credential verification happens with Zoom before storage, with concrete failure modes (422 credentials_rejected / scope_missing, 502 vendor_unavailable, nothing stored). It also states the required permission (settings:edit), the required OAuth scopes, and the side effect of returning the app's user as default meeting host.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and endpoint, then verification behavior, then the disconnect branch — a sensible order. It is a dense, run-on paragraph with parenthetical error codes that make it slower to scan than it needs to be, but essentially every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers what the call returns ('answers the app's user = the default meeting host'), authentication/permission requirements, failure codes, storage guarantees, and downstream effects on booking pages. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by grouping accountId/clientId/clientSecret as Zoom App Marketplace credentials and explaining that disconnect:true converts the call into a DELETE that forgets the app. The force parameter's destructive semantics live in the schema rather than the description.

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+resource pair ('Connect or replace the account's Zoom Server-to-Server OAuth app') and pins it to an endpoint (PUT /api/v1/settings/zoom), while also declaring the inverse operation (disconnect → DELETE). An agent can distinguish this from conduyt_zoom_status / conduyt_zoom_test without opening any schema.

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 frames the two modes: provide credentials to connect/replace, or pass disconnect:true to forget the app, plus the consequence that Zoom booking pages fall back to their written location. It never names the sibling tools (conduyt_zoom_status, conduyt_zoom_test) as alternatives, so the when-not-to-use routing is left implicit.

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