select_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: it mutates global state affecting every other tool, and it validates connectivity by checking the server responds. It omits what happens on an unknown connection name, whether the choice persists across sessions, and what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, the core action front-loaded, and every sentence adds a distinct fact (what changes, why it matters, what it verifies). No filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, global side effect, and connectivity validation, which is enough to call it correctly. Return value shape and error behavior on an invalid name are the only notable gaps.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented there with a pointer to list_connections. The description adds only illustrative example values ('dev', 'test'), which is marginal value over the schema — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Cambia la conexión activa") with a concrete example ('dev' o 'test'), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_connections and current_connection by acting on the active connection, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Todas las demás herramientas usan la conexión activa" supplies the context that makes this tool relevant, which is a useful usage cue. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the alternatives (list_connections, add_connection) that would frame the decision.

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