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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the tool validates the key, which implies an external check, and saves it persistently. However, it does not disclose whether reconnecting overwrites an existing key or what failure behavior looks like.

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 one concise sentence that states the action and its object without redundancy. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or vague qualifiers.

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 one-parameter tool with safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it conveys the operation and the app-specific scope. The main gap is the lack of any statement about return values or success/error behavior, especially since there is no output schema, but this is a minor omission for this tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already covers the single apiKey parameter completely, including its type, minimum length, and where to obtain it. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it validates and saves the user's Orbit API key. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like disconnect_orbit and auth_status by framing it as the connection/setup action. The app-scoped phrasing adds useful precision.

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 implies this is used when a user wants to connect their Orbit account, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over auth_status or disconnect_orbit. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues are provided.

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