Remove Database Connection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation refuses the default database and demands a destructive switch plus path confirmation before proceeding.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the constraints trailing. No filler, though the unparseable 'destructive switch' reference costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with three undocumented required parameters and a phantom 'destructive switch', an agent still lacks enough to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters are described. The description hints at '路径确认' (path confirmation, i.e. confirm_database_path) but leaves aprx_path and database_path unexplained, and references a '破坏性开关' (destructive switch) that does not exist as a parameter in the schema, which is actively confusing.

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 ('移除精确数据库连接' / remove an exact database connection) and adds a scope qualifier ('精确' / exact) that distinguishes it from a generic connection removal. It does not name the add/create sibling explicitly, but the remove semantics are unmistakable.

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?

Provides one when-not condition ('拒绝默认数据库' / rejects the default database) and states prerequisites (destructive switch, path confirmation). It never names alternatives such as add_database_connection or remove_folder_connection, so routing guidance is only implied.

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