switch_connection

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

The description explains that switching changes the credentials for subsequent MCP calls, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid name) or whether the switch is persistent.

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?

The description is very concise: two sentences plus the parameter description. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool. It lacks details about the return value, but an output schema likely exists (context indicates 'Has output schema: true').

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?

The description provides a clear explanation of the 'name' parameter ('The connection name (label) to activate'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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?

The description clearly states the tool switches the active Frappe LMS connection by name, and explains the effect on subsequent calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (none of which perform connection switching).

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?

The description mentions the tool is used to switch the active connection, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives like list_connections.

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