update_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool updates one or more existing connections, supports batch operations, and requires each batch item to include 'id'. It also states the return value is a confirmation message. However, for a mutation tool, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, reversibility, or permission requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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 well-structured with a first-line summary, a brief explanation of modes, an Args list, and a Returns section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the Args list largely duplicates schema descriptions, adding length without new information, though it remains reasonably concise overall.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 8 parameters and batch support. The description adequately explains the two usage modes and batch requirements, but lacks information on partial updates, error handling, or how this tool differs from other update_* tools. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed, but the description still has notable gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some usage semantics (single vs batch modes) but mostly restates the schema descriptions (e.g., 'New ID of the source component'). It also introduces a 'ctx' argument that does not appear in the input schema, which is confusing and adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Update an existing connection in the architecture' and mentions batch support via 'items'. This is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling update_* tools (e.g., update_component, update_data_store), so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 usage context for both single and batch modes: 'For single item: provide id and fields to update directly. For batch: provide a list of connection dicts in the 'items' parameter.' It also explains that each batch item must include 'id'. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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