Governance Use Connection

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered. The description usefully adds where profile names come from (~/.snowflake/connections.toml), but says nothing about session state impact, whether in-flight work is affected, or what happens when the named profile is absent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the value source are both stated compactly. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a session-mutating tool the definition omits prerequisites (does the profile need to exist? is the switch persistent across subsequent calls?) that an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 single parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by revealing that connection_name refers to a profile in ~/.snowflake/connections.toml, which tells the agent where valid values come from, but it adds no format, case-sensitivity, or failure semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('switch'), the resource (the active Snowflake session / connection profile), and the source of the profiles ('~/.snowflake/connections.toml'), so an agent can tell this apart from read-only siblings like governance_list_connections or governance_get_current_context by the mutation implied. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, which is what would push it to a 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description states what the tool does, not the situation that should select it over governance_list_connections or governance_get_current_context; usage is only weakly implied by the word 'switch'.

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