set_tableauserver_connection

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 discloses the mutation scope ('edits the workbook datasource connection only'), which is helpful, but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or side effects on existing connection settings — a notable gap for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 short paragraphs with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows logically. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 not be described, and the scope/non-overlap messaging is solid. However, with six undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the description leaves an agent without enough information to supply correct arguments confidently.

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 6 parameters (server, dbname, username, table_name, port, directory). The description explains none of them — not even formats like expected server URL, port meaning, or directory defaults — so it fails to compensate for the total absence of schema documentation.

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 workbook datasource to use a Tableau Server connection.' An agent can identify the action without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling connection tools (set_csv_connection, set_hyper_connection, set_mysql_connection, set_excel_connection), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Provides a clear when-not: it edits the datasource connection only and does not configure REST API/PAT credentials, directing the agent to pass env_path to validation tools instead. This is useful scoping guidance, though it offers no explicit comparison against the other datasource-connection siblings.

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