twilize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the configuration action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this modifies an existing workbook, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., overwriting connections), or handles errors. The phrase 'Configure' implies mutation but lacks depth on consequences or operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools for other data sources, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral traits, though the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. For a configuration tool with multiple parameters, more guidance is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filepath', 'table_name', or 'tables' represent, their formats, or how they interact (e.g., that 'filepath' points to a Hyper file). This leaves all three parameters semantically unclear beyond their schema titles.

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 action ('Configure') and the target ('workbook datasource'), specifying it's for a 'local Hyper extract connection'. It distinguishes from siblings like set_mssql_connection or set_mysql_connection by focusing on Hyper files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other data source tools beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_mssql_connection or hyper_to_dashboard. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workbook or Hyper file) or when this configuration is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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