add_connection

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

With annotations empty, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits — the connection is session-scoped/not written to disk, and activation is optional. However it says nothing about permissions, connection failure behavior, or what happens to an already-active connection.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the scope constraint and optional activation. No wasted text, though it leaves too much unsaid for a 9-parameter tool.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no guidance on credentials, readOnly semantics, defaults, or return/error behavior.

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?

Nine parameters with only 11% schema description coverage (just 'activate'), so the description must compensate for eight undocumented fields (name, host, user, password, port, ssl, database, readOnly) and does not. It only echoes the optional-activation behavior the schema already describes.

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 ('Registra una conexión nueva') and adds the key scope qualifier that it is session-only and not persisted to disk. This distinguishes it from persistent-connection siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with select_connection or list_connections.

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 'solo para esta sesión (no se guarda en disco)' clause implies when this tool is appropriate (ephemeral connections), but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance. Usage must be inferred from the session-scope hint.

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