connect

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by describing the key-provisioning flow, the fact that Google sign-in returns immediately while approval happens in the browser, and that the next call will succeed. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for an auth/setup mutation.

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-loads the core action and packs three useful, non-redundant pieces of information into a short block. The Google sentence is somewhat dense and reads as a run-on, costing a point, but there is no filler.

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 exists, and the description compensates by stating return behavior ('returns at once: the user approves in the browser and the next call works'). Combined with the alternative tool pointer and the anti-pattern warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the single `app` parameter has a full enum, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (connect) and resource (one app this server uses), and the enum in the schema pins the exact set of apps. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling app-operation tools and from the read-side `connection_status`.

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 routes the agent: 'To see which apps are connected, call `connection_status`', and gives a hard rule ('Never ask the user for a key in the chat'). Per-app guidance (key-issuing apps vs Google) tells the agent when different sub-flows apply.

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