preview_test_connector

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

Discloses that a real connection is opened, that calls are rate-limited per organization, that successful outcomes are cached briefly, and that nothing is persisted. It also lists the exact return fields, going well beyond the 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, behavioral effects, return values, and next-step guidance without wasted words. The dry-run distinction is front-loaded, so an agent immediately knows the tool's role.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields and operational consequences such as rate limiting and connection opening. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, this provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters already have descriptive entries in the input schema, with 100% coverage. The description adds no per-parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents connector_type and config.

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 action ('Run a real connectivity test') against an inline connector definition, and immediately frames it as the dry run for create_connector without saving anything. This clearly differentiates it from create_connector and related connector tools.

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?

Explicitly identifies this as the dry run for create_connector and instructs the agent to call create_connector once the definition passes. It does not directly discuss when to prefer test_connector or preview_browse_connector, but the intended workflow is clear.

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