Add Connector Destination

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

Adds substantial detail beyond annotations: read-modify-append workflow, idempotent success for exact matches, rejection of conflicting settings, and required organization-admin auth. The annotations already cover idempotency/safety, but the description enriches them meaningfully.

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?

Organized under Purpose/Behavior/Auth/Safety headers, front-loading the key action and constraints with zero filler. Each section earns its space.

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 mutation tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior, auth, idempotency, and safety checks needed before calling. Complete for decision-making.

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 75%, and the description adds operational meaning: omitting group_id triggers auto-generation of an independent consumer group, and conflicting settings are rejected. It doesn't document each field's format, but complements the schema well.

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 (add), resource type (Kafka topic-to-table destination), and scope (one destination to an existing connector). Distinguishes from create-connector and related connector siblings by emphasizing appending to an existing connector's destination list.

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?

Clarifies the additive intent ('without changing its current destinations') and semantics (omit group_id for auto-generation; idempotency for identical destinations). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the design of the tool makes its use context clear.

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