switch_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: it explains the action changes context, lists prerequisites (existence, online status, blocklist), and describes the return structure. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides solid operational context.

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?

Perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, prerequisites, Args, and Returns. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence states the core action, subsequent sentences add necessary constraints, and the parameter/return sections are efficiently formatted.

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 moderate complexity (context switching with constraints), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action, constraints, parameter meaning, and return structure - covering everything needed for proper use without redundancy.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does this excellently by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('Name of the database to switch to'), adding context about requirements (must exist, be online, not blocked) that goes beyond what the bare 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 specific action ('Switch the active database context') and resource ('database'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_databases or execute_query. It uses precise technical language ('USE statement') that clarifies the exact operation.

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 about when to use this tool ('Changes the current database') and mentions prerequisites ('database must exist, be online, and not be in the blocklist'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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