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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the connection starts in PendingAuth state and must be completed by the customer via the returned linkUrl. This is critical for the agent to understand the asynchronous flow. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three sentences long, starting with the core action and mutation hint, then parameters, then behavior (PendingAuth, linkUrl, API endpoint, return value). Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers: purpose, required parameters with source, state transition, expected follow-up (customer authorization), return value, and endpoint. No gaps remain.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that platformKey comes from codat_list_integrations and giving a concrete example ('gbol'), which aids correct invocation. For the 'fields' parameter, the description notes it's an 'escape hatch', which matches the schema's intent.

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 tool creates a new data connection for a given platform on a company. The verb 'create' and resource 'data connection' are specific, and the scope 'on a company' differentiates it from sibling tools like codat_list_connections (list) or codat_get_connection (read).

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 explains how to get the platformKey (from codat_list_integrations) and provides an example ('gbol' for QuickBooks Online sandbox). It also notes that the connection is in PendingAuth state and requires customer authorization via linkUrl. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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