connect_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses persistence, live verification before saving, the exact storage location and permissions (~/.countbean/credentials.json with 0600), immediate effect without restart or environment variables, and optional reuse of a previously connected book.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds valuable operational details. It is slightly longer than needed, and the instruction to paste both values on one line is a bit ambiguous, but most sentences earn their place by explaining behavior or parameter usage.

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 no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description covers the common invocation path well: required key, optional book id, persistence, and effect timing. The missing control_url explanation and lack of failure-mode detail keep it from being fully complete, but an agent has enough to call it correctly in the standard case.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does explain api_key (the cbk_ key shown once) and book_id (the bok_ id, optional if already connected), but control_url is completely unaddressed. This leaves one of three parameters under-specified despite strong coverage of the other two.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Connect this plugin to a hosted Countbean book, permanently.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like disconnect_book and connection_status by signaling this is the establishment action, not a teardown or status check.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: during initial setup, with the key from the book's page, and before other operations take effect. It does not explicitly name alternatives like disconnect_book or connection_status as contrasts, but the workflow is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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