connect_x

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-phase choreography and the need for external browser authorization, which are essential behavioral traits. It does not discuss error handling or side effects, but the core interaction pattern is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the concrete usage pattern. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 two-step flow is clearly explained, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should also clarify the meaning of lane and clientId and the response shape beyond 'consent URL.' It is adequate for a high-level understanding but not fully complete for direct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only touches on confirm via the example { confirm: true }, while leaving lane and clientId completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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: connect or confirm an X account via the capx chokepoint. It names the specific resource and mechanism, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like post_now or upload_media, which target different resources and actions.

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 an explicit two-step usage protocol: call once for a consent URL, then call again with confirm:true after browser authorization. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers a competing connect flow, so the guidance is sufficient.

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