create_connector

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description must carry behavioral info. It discloses that config is encrypted at rest, the connector starts untested, it persists under the active API key's organization, and it returns the connector with its connector_id. This is comprehensive and does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, state and next steps, and alternative. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no fluff, though it is slightly longer than the minimum necessary.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, expected return, and clear follow-up actions. For a creation tool with no output schema, this is complete—an agent knows exactly what to do before, during, and after the call.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the config parameter (encrypted at rest, never returned), which is not fully captured in the schema. It does not redundantly restate parameter names, but it enriches the config semantics beyond the schema.

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 (save a connector configuration) and its purpose (for later data onboarding, health checks, and schema browsing). It also distinguishes itself from preview_test_connector, which is for trying without saving, so the tool's scope is unambiguous.

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 guidance: after creating, call test_connector to verify connectivity and browse_connector to discover schema. It also names preview_test_connector as an alternative when no persistence is desired, making the decision clear.

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