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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description simply says 'Rename a datasource connection' and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether the rename affects linked reports, whether it requires permissions, or what the response contains. It does not contradict 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 a single declarative sentence, which is appropriately concise. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. It earns its place by providing a direct statement, though it could arguably add a bit more usage context without becoming bloated.

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 two-parameter rename tool, the description plus schema and annotations are mostly sufficient. However, the description does not clarify the tool's effect on dependent resources or whether the operation is reversible, and with no explicit usage guidelines, an agent might not know the correct workflow (e.g., retrieving connection_id from connected_datasources first, though the schema hints at it). An output schema exists but is not shown, so return behavior is unknown.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions: 'name' is 'New name' and 'connection_id' is 'Connection ID (from connected_datasources)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The hint that connection_id comes from connected_datasources is already in the schema, so the description is redundant.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Rename a datasource connection'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_connection, test_connection, and create_connection because 'rename' is specific and the title reinforces the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other rename/update tools beyond the resource name.

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 the tool is used to change the name of an existing datasource connection, and the schema requires connection_id and name. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like using connected_datasources to obtain the connection_id. Sibling tools like test_connection and delete_connection are contextually distinct, but the description offers no direct comparison.

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