create_connected_account_magic_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a link and expiry, which is helpful, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a connection record is created), permissions required, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides parameter and return details. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it omits potential prerequisites (e.g., environment must exist, connector must be available) and does not mention error behavior or whether the operation is idempotent. It is adequate for a simple creation but leaves some context to be inferred.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly explaining each parameter: environmentId format (env_<number>), identifier as a friendly name, and connector with an example ('notion'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and covers all three parameters, though it could elaborate on the role of identifier and valid connector values.

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?

The description clearly states the action (create a magic link), the resource (OAuth connector account), and the scope (environment level). It also gives concrete examples (Notion, Gmail) and a sample connector value, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_connected_accounts or enable_environment_connection.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (for connecting OAuth accounts via magic links) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that enable_environment_connection might be used for different connection flows, so an agent gets context but no explicit routing guidance.

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