setup_connector

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: credentials are read-only, validated against upstream API before writing, stored in OS keychain, and a 'BEHAVIOR CONTRACT' for the LLM to never echo credentials. All five connector types are explained as using read-only credentials by design.

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 comprehensive but verbose, including detailed parameter lists that largely duplicate schema descriptions. The structure is clear (purpose, usage, behavior, inputs), but the length could be reduced without losing information. Still, it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: validation, storage, credential nature, and a behavior contract. It lacks return value details but that is acceptable without output schema. The description is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the context for each connector (e.g., 'Etherscan API key — a public-data rate-limit token'), the purpose of optional parameters (e.g., accountTypes, includeFutures), and the read-only nature. This justifies a 4.

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 'Creates a new account by writing READ-ONLY credentials to the OS keychain' and lists specific user queries like 'add a Bybit account' or 'connect my Solana wallet'. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., add_custom_token adds tokens, not connectors). The scope and verb+resource are explicit.

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 provides explicit usage triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user asks: ...') and a when-not scenario: 'If the user pastes credentials inline in chat, suggest they use the Settings UI (render_settings tool) form instead.' This clearly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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