Connect owner credentials securely

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the retrieval path is a direct HTTPS upload and that secrets must never transit chat or tool arguments — a security constraint an agent could not infer from annotations alone. It stops short of describing what the returned instructions contain.

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?

Two short sentences, the purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence is the operationally critical safety warning. Nothing is wasted and nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, this is nearly complete: the agent knows it is a read, that it yields upload instructions, and that secrets must not be passed in arguments. The one gap is not telling the agent what the instructions look like or what the follow-up step is after reading them.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to fetch the instructions.

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?

States a specific resource and behavior: read-only instructions for direct HTTPS credential upload. An agent can tell this returns guidance rather than performing an action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'payment_instructions' or from connection-management tools like list_connections / replace_launch_connection, but the 'credential upload' framing is distinctive enough.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should read this when it needs to get owner credentials uploaded. The second sentence gives a hard constraint ('never put third-party secrets in chat or MCP tool arguments'), which is a useful usage rule. However, it never says when to call this versus list_connections or replace_launch_connection, or what to do with the result.

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