Create Connector

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: destination tables can be auto-created on first events, each destination gets its own consumer group, admin auth is required, and creation is non-idempotent with a concrete reconciliation step (call list-connectors and match by name). This enriches the idempotentHint=false/destructiveHint=false profile rather than merely restating it.

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 Purpose and organizes Behavior/Auth/Safety/Reliability as labeled blocks, so it is scannable despite its length. A few points (e.g., the group_id behavior) overlap with schema text, which is mild redundancy.

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 complex tool with nested objects, no output schema, and low parameter-description coverage, the definition supplies the missing operational context: auth requirements, safety/secret handling, non-idempotency, and reconciliation on ambiguity. Nothing critical to correct invocation is absent.

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 only 33%, but the description only partially compensates: it clarifies group_id omission behavior (which the schema already states), the offset policy, and that SASL values are secrets, while leaving name, type, destinations structure, and most settings subfields unexplained. Marginal value over the schema given the coverage gap.

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 ('Create an active Kafka connector') plus scope ('one or more independent topic-to-table destinations'), which distinguishes it from siblings like add-connector-destination and set-connector-status. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 clear context on when creation applies and its downstream effect ('Consumption starts after the runtime applies the connector'), plus preconditions like org-admin access. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling (e.g., add-connector-destination) or says when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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