mt_use_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('activates') but doesn't explain what 'activates' entails—whether it changes system state, requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place clearly.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what 'activates' means behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or how it integrates with other connection tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'connectionId' documented as '使用する接続のID' (ID of the connection to use). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '指定した接続をアクティブにします' (Activates the specified connection) clearly states the verb ('activates') and resource ('connection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mt_list_connections' or 'mt_test_connection', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to connections (add, list, test, remove), but no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this activation is needed versus other connection operations.

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