connect_account

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: this is a two-phase flow that requires the user's browser approval, yields a verification URL and code the agent must hand off, and needs no operator key. It does not contradict the annotations (it never claims a read-only operation), though it says nothing about what happens if the user never completes approval or whether the pending link expires.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the imperative operating rules and a useful constraint about operator keys. No wasted wording.

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 conveys the flow and the artifacts returned (URL and code), which matters since there is no output schema, but it leaves the single parameter undocumented and never names finish_connection as the required next step. Adequate for the happy path, incomplete for the full lifecycle.

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?

There is one parameter, `name`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate, but it gives no indication of what `name` labels or how it affects the connection.

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 verb and resource ('Start connecting the user's own Shisha Market account') and the word 'start' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling finish_connection. An agent can tell this is the initiation step of an account-linking flow without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete operating instructions: present the verification URL and code, have the user sign in and approve in their browser, and never open or approve the link on their behalf. It omits an explicit pointer to the follow-up step (finish_connection) once the user approves, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully closed.

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