create_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a connection ID). The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe invocation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but clear. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence adds value given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter semantics. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description doesn't mention this.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics for all three parameters: 'name' as the connection name, 'type' as the connection type with examples, and 'configuration' as a JSON string with type-specific config. This compensates partially but doesn't provide format details, validation rules, or examples for the JSON configuration.

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 'Create a new data connection in Polytomic' which specifies the verb (create), resource (data connection), and system context. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_connection' or 'delete_connection' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_connections' or 'get_connection' beyond the obvious create vs. read distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid configuration data), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing connections), or direct alternatives like 'update_connection' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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