connect

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real value by disclosing that Google sign-in is asynchronous ('returns at once: the user approves in the browser and the next call works') and that key-based apps require a stored terminal command. It doesn't cover failure modes or what happens on partial/again-called connections.

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 core action, then per-app caveats, then the routing hint and guardrail. Four sentences each carry distinct information, though the key-storage mechanics sentence is denser than necessary.

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?

With one enum parameter fully documented and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral load well, including the async sign-in semantics and the follow-up call. Lacking any mention of errors or retry behavior for a credential-storing mutation keeps it from a 5.

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 only says 'The app to connect', so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that behavior differs per app (key-issuing apps vs the special Google OAuth flow), which meaningfully informs how the enum value changes the interaction.

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) plus resource (one app this server uses) and clarifies the consequence, that credentials get stored. It explicitly routes away from the sibling by naming `connection_status` for the read case, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives explicit guidance for the read alternative ('To see which apps are connected, call `connection_status`') and a guardrail ('Never ask the user for a key in the chat'). It does not state conditions under which connecting should be avoided or deferred, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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