connect_provider

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the credential is stored and never returned by any tool, and the operation is a write scoped to one client. It does not explicitly mention failure modes or whether an existing credential is overwritten, but it covers the main side effect.

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 compact and information-dense, with no redundant wording. It front-loads the purpose and adds only necessary guidance about OAuth and credential handling.

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?

For a simple mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and privacy behavior. It does not specify the return value or error conditions, but that is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity and the provided schema.

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?

All three parameters are described with concrete meanings: client identifies the registered client, provider specifies the service (with examples), and credential is the API key/token that is stored and never returned. Schema coverage is complete.

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?

Description clearly names the action (connect), the target (one provider for one client), and the method (paste a credential). It also distinguishes itself from OAuth-based setup by referencing `munim connect` for providers that support OAuth.

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 states when to use this tool: for providers that do not offer OAuth, such as Resend, and directs users to prefer `munim connect` when OAuth is available. This gives clear selection guidance relative to the main alternative.

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