connect_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that stale/non-matching sides are disconnected before replacement, that a healthy matching side stays active, that a partial single-side connection persists until retried, and that failed logins are tracked with lockout warnings. It omits auth prerequisites and what the tool returns, but the mutation semantics are unusually well spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then progressively narrower detail on matching, profile composition, and switch behavior. Reasonably tight for the number of behaviors disclosed; the 'Available profiles:' block is dynamic state rather than prose, and no sentence is pure filler.

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 one-parameter connection-switching tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors: search resolution, dual-side profiles, disconnection order, partial-connect outcomes, and lockout risk. Only the response shape after a successful switch is left unstated, which 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents ID-or-name lookup and the 'list' keyword, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond that: matching is case-insensitive and partial matches are accepted only when they resolve to a single profile, which materially changes how an agent should format the query.

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: 'Switch the active database and Service Layer connection to a different SAP Business One environment.' None of the siblings (execute_service_layer, execute_sql, check_connection, get_schema_info, execute_service_layer_write*) perform connection switching, so the agent can separate it by scope alone.

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?

Gives operational guidance for the 'list' query and for retrying a failed side, which is useful invocation context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus check_connection or the execute_* siblings, nor any explicit exclusion, so usage remains implied rather than directed.

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