Update a tool connection

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds only 'Authorization class: board', which is minor. No additional context on side effects, required permissions, or outcome of update is given.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is under-informative; the second sentence provides internal operational detail (API path and auth class) that is not helpful for selection or invocation.

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?

Given the complex input schema and multiple sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect of the update, return values (output schema exists but description doesn't mention it), or how to construct the body. The annotations and schema alone are insufficient without descriptive context.

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 0%; the description does not mention any parameters despite a complex input schema with many fields (body with properties like name, config, status, etc., and path with connectionId). Without any parameter descriptions, the agent cannot understand required inputs.

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 'Update a tool connection', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get' and 'delete' by indicating modification. However, it could be more explicit about modifying an existing 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete). The description does not provide context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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