Install a new destination

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: validation behavior (server validates config against its schema, returns 400 on shape errors), return value (destination id), and post-creation use (binding to Campaign). It stops short of mentioning error cases or idempotency.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by parameter constraints, validation behavior, examples, and return value usage. At about 5 sentences, it is concise but could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters with nested objects, the description covers the main creation behavior, config validation, and result usage. However, it omits details on environment_id and filters, and lacks error handling beyond config validation, leaving the tool partially underspecified.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for connector_id (must be from catalog) and config (per-adapter structures), but does not describe name, environment_id, or filters parameters, leaving gaps.

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 'Install a destination adapter into the current project' with a specific verb and resource. It provides examples of connector_ids from the catalog, distinguishing the tool's purpose from sibling tools like destination_get or destination_delete, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 mentions that connector_id must come from destination_catalog and gives per-adapter config examples, providing context for use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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