use_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose that this mutates session/connection state, what happens if the named database doesn't exist, whether it requires an existing connection, or whether the change persists — all important for a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no waste, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — nothing is front-loaded beyond a vague purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and one required parameter undocumented, the description should do substantially more. An agent cannot tell whether this switches databases, errors on missing names, or persists across calls.

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 0% and the sole required parameter ('name') is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'de la conexión activa' implies the target is implicit, but the description adds no meaning about what the name refers to or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource ('Selecciona la base de datos') scoped to the active connection, which separates it loosely from select_connection. However, 'selecciona la base de datos actual' is ambiguous — it could read as reading the current DB rather than switching to a named one, and no sibling is named to disambiguate from list_databases or current_connection.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance. Given the dense sibling set (select_connection, current_connection, add_connection, create_database), the description never tells the agent when this tool is the right one.

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