connect_server

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: the password is a short-lived Microsoft Entra token minted from the user's Azure login, nothing is stored on disk, and the connection state is stored in session context. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 action, followed by a concise security note and a compact Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no fluff or 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite source (list_postgres_servers), authentication behavior, parameter meanings, and session side effects. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable. This is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description's Args section fully compensates by explaining server_id's origin, server_name's display purpose, database as an optional default, and schema defaulting to 'public'. This gives the agent everything it needs to fill parameters correctly.

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 connects to a PostgreSQL flexible server by ARM resource ID, resolves FQDN, and stores it in session context. This specific action distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or run_query, which operate independently of connection setup.

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 references list_postgres_servers as the source for server_id and notes defaults for subsequent calls, implying it is a prerequisite for later query tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative connection methods, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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