Start a CRM connection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: required API scopes (integrations:write), required OAuth scope (luca:full), data sensitivity (redacted), and that it does not require idempotency while persisting one-time state. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a security-sensitive operation.

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-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by clearly labeled operation/scope/idempotency/workspace lines. Slightly list-like boilerplate but each line carries real information and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and scopes/idempotency/workspace handling are covered. It still leaves the OAuth-relevant locationId and redirectUri parameters unexplained, which an agent invoking a connection-start flow would need.

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 only 50%: provider is self-documenting via its enum, and workspaceId/workspaceSlug already carry schema descriptions matching the description's override note. The description does not compensate for the undocumented query sub-parameters locationId and redirectUri, which are critical to an OAuth flow.

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?

"Create a CRM provider OAuth URL and store its one-time state" names a specific verb (create) and resource (CRM provider OAuth URL), and the side-effect of storing one-time state is explicit. It distinguishes this connection-starting step from siblings like luca_integrations_crm_connections_create, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 the usage context (kick off a CRM OAuth connection) and gives one concrete rule: use workspaceId/workspaceSlug to override the environment default. However it offers no when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to the many sibling integration tools.

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