post_connect_configs

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description merely restates the update intent and adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the configuration is replaced or merged, whether the connector restarts, or the effect on running tasks. No contradiction with annotations, but no added transparency either.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It is structured well and easy to parse, though it is so brief that it sacrifices explanatory richness for brevity.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and a sibling ecosystem including create, get, and delete operations, the description is too thin. It omits return behavior, side effects, and the relationship between connectId and cluster, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool.

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 all four parameters (name, cluster, configs, connectId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'Update a connector configuration', so it does not need to compensate; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('connector configuration'), distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_connect_configs and creation tools like post_connect. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_connect, get_connect_configs, or delete_connect. The description simply states the mutation without indicating prerequisites, the lifecycle context, or cases where another tool should be preferred.

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