nebula_configure_connection

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds non-obvious consequences: settings are process-scoped only, and replacing a connection resets its session and graph choice. It also discloses a security trait ('passwords are never returned, but tool arguments may be stored by the host') that no annotation conveys. It stops short of permission/auth requirements or error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler, though the security caveat and alternative are packed tightly enough to be slightly overloaded for one paragraph.

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 no explanation, and the description covers scope, reset behavior, and credential handling. The main gap is parameter meaning for a 7-parameter connection tool at 0% schema coverage, which leaves an agent guessing at acceptable input formats.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them. Format-critical details such as how 'addresses' should be expressed (host:port list? URI?), TLS semantics, and timeout units are absent from both the schema and the description, so the description 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 specific verb and resource ('Configure the database') and adds the key constraint 'without restarting', which distinguishes it from setup-style siblings such as nebula_switch_environment or nebula_test_connection. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It names one alternative ('installer --configure for local no-echo password entry instead if preferred') with a clear condition (prefer no-echo local entry), which is genuine routing guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to configure vs. test or switch an existing connection among the many nebula_* siblings, leaving the main usage decision implicit.

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