Connect Integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses an internal precondition check and an idempotent early-return path (already_connected), which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the conditional behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of describing returns, and it only covers the already_connected branch. What the tool returns on a successful OAuth start (e.g., an authorization URL or state token) is unstated, which is a meaningful gap for an agent that must act on the result.

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%, including the provider enum and the orgId scope note, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only a generic 'for a TestDino project' reference and no format or scoping details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Start the provider OAuth/connect flow for a TestDino project.' This is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the closely related sibling get_integration_status, which would have sharpened selection.

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 through the pre-check behavior ('checks current status and returns already_connected instead of starting OAuth when the provider is connected'), which tells the agent the tool is safe to call even when already connected. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_integration_status for a pure status check.

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