close_connection

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

With annotations only supplying readOnlyHint, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the pool is freed server-side, the configuration is preserved, and the connection self-reopens on next use, which tells the agent the effect is cheap and reversible. The remaining tension is that freeing server-side connections is a runtime state change while readOnlyHint=true implies none, but the description's explicit 'reabre automaticamente' mitigates this rather than contradicting it outright.

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, front-loaded with the action and its server-side effect, then the bulk flag, then the reversibility note. Nothing is padded, though the middle sentence largely restates the schema's close_all field.

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 and both parameters are fully documented, so the description only needs to carry side-effect semantics, which it does well (config retained, auto-reconnect). It falls short of 5 only because it does not state what happens to in-flight queries or how this relates to remove_connection.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description's mention of close_all=true adds no meaning beyond the field description. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting for both close_all and connection.

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 ('Fecha o pool de uma conexão') plus the effect ('libera as conexões no servidor'), and the clause 'A configuração não é removida' implicitly distinguishes it from remove_connection. It does not name the sibling it is contrasted with, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 gives one conditional usage rule ('Use close_all=true para fechar todas'), which covers the bulk-operation case. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer close_connection vs remove_connection or why one would close a pool at all, leaving most selection reasoning to inference.

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