superset_database_test_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the operation is non-creating (a test only) and the URI must be reachable from the Superset server. It does not mention what happens on failure or whether the operation has side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 brief, with a clear initial sentence followed by an IMPORTANT note and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers its core purpose, the key prerequisite, and all three arguments. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks details like error handling or permissions, but for a non-destructive test operation, the description is reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that database_name is only a connection name shown in error messages (not the actual database), and extra is a JSON string for additional settings. The sqlalchemy_uri explanation is largely a restatement of the parameter name, but the overall param documentation is minimally helpful.

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 uses a specific verb 'Test' and explicitly states 'without creating it', which clearly distinguishes it from superset_database_create and superset_database_update. It identifies the resource (database connection) and the action (test).

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 phrase 'without creating it' implies that this tool should be used to validate a connection before committing to creation, contrasting with superset_database_create. It also highlights an important prerequisite ('URI must be reachable from the Superset server'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the creation contrast.

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