Reconnect a tool app with replacement credentials

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutating) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether the connection is tested, what happens to existing state, or side effects). It only restates the technical endpoint and auth class, which are not behavioral.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The second sentence adds technical reference (endpoint and auth class) which is useful but not verbose. No unnecessary information.

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 tool has two required nested objects in the input schema and no schema descriptions, the description should explain the structure. It fails to do so. With many sibling tools for tool connections, more context about when to reconnect vs patch would improve completeness.

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%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. However, it only mentions 'replacement credentials' without explaining that 'credentialValues' is a map of key-value pairs or that 'connectionId' is the path parameter. This leaves the agent to infer structure from parameter names alone.

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 verb 'reconnect' and the resource 'tool app', specifying 'with replacement credentials'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_patch_tool_connections_by_connection_id (which updates other settings) and pc_delete_tool_connections_by_connection_id (deletion).

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 like patching or deleting. It does not describe prerequisites or typical scenarios for reconnection, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this over similar operations.

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