validate_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavior that connectivity is not tested, which is essential for correct use. It does not detail return values or error handling, but the limitation disclosure is strong.

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 concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies a key limitation. Every word is meaningful; no fluff or 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?

Given the tool has a nested parameter object and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error list) or how errors are reported. The limitation is well covered, but return behavior is missing.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is moderate (properties have descriptions), but the tool's description does not elaborate on parameters or their relationships. The agent gains no additional semantic insight from the description.

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 validates source database connection parameters, and explicitly clarifies it does NOT test connectivity. This is a specific action with a well-defined scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_export or get_version.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and its limitation (no connectivity test). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives, though the limitation serves as an implicit caution.

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