post_connect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds little beyond restating that a new definition is created. It does not disclose behaviors such as what happens when the connectId already exists, whether existing definitions are affected, or what side effects occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It immediately communicates the core action and resource without filler, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'connect definition' is, how it relates to the cluster/connectId, or what the agent should expect after invocation, leaving important context implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters adequately. The description itself adds no extra meaning about cluster, connectId, name, or configs, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific action ('Create') and resource ('connect definition'), so an agent can tell this is a creation operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like post_connect_configs, leaving some ambiguity about the exact boundary.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_connect_configs or get_connects. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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