validate_connection

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool only checks parameters and does not actually test connectivity. This is a key behavioral trait that prevents false expectations. Could mention if any side effects exist, but likely none.

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?

Two sentences that are direct and front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does and a critical limitation. No redundant or filler content.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and behavioral limitation well. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., success/failure indication). Since it is a straightforward validation, this is a minor gap.

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 50%, but the tool description does not add much meaning beyond the schema. It mentions verifying 'required parameters' but does not detail which parameters are required or how they relate. The schema itself has descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds minimal value.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Validate' and resource 'source database connection parameters'. Distinguishes from a full connectivity test by explicitly stating what it does not do. Sibling tools like execute_export are unrelated, so purpose is unique and specific.

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?

Explicitly says what the tool does (validate parameters) and what it does NOT do (test connectivity). Provides context that connectivity would require database access, but does not name a specific alternative tool. Still clear when to use this tool vs. other actions.

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