connect

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real weight: it discloses that key-based apps surface where to get a key plus a terminal command, while Google starts an OAuth browser flow that 'returns at once' and works on the next call. That interactive, deferred-completion behavior is meaningful context absent from annotations.

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 behavior per app type, then the sibling pointer and constraint. Every sentence carries information, though the Google flow sentence is a touch dense. No filler or repetition.

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 single-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral cases (key entry vs OAuth), the immediate-return semantics of the Google path, and how to verify state via `connection_status`. It omits failure handling, but is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 enum lists all apps, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the raw enum by grouping apps into 'key-issuing' vs OAuth (Google) categories and explaining what each implies, giving the `app` parameter semantic meaning the schema alone does not.

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 ('Connect one app this server uses'), so the action is unambiguous. It also names the relevant sibling, `connection_status`, so an agent can tell the connect action apart from the status-check action. It stops short of naming the other siblings, but those are app-specific tools unrelated to this operation.

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 adds a hard constraint, 'Never ask the user for a key in the chat.' It gives clear context for when/how to call, though it doesn't spell out refusal or retry conditions.

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