Snowflake Use Connection

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful context beyond them by disclosing the source of profiles (~/.snowflake/connections.toml) and that the switch is dynamic/session-wide. It omits what an agent most needs: that this mutates shared session state affecting all subsequent calls, and what happens if the named profile is missing or requires re-authentication.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries information (what changes, what it changes to, where the target comes from). No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 the description need not explain return values. Still, for a state-mutating session tool it should mention that the switch persists for all subsequent tool calls in the session and how to discover valid profile names; those omissions are meaningful for correct invocation.

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 carries the burden for the single parameter. It does partially compensate by stating that profiles come from ~/.snowflake/connections.toml, implying connection_name must match a profile key in that file, but it never says whether the name is case-sensitive, whether it must pre-exist, or how to enumerate valid values.

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 and resource: 'switch the active Snowflake session to a different connection profile.' That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling, most of which are read/list/DDL operations. It stops short of 5 only because it never says which sibling it relates to (e.g., list_connections for discovering profile names).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer the tool is used when subsequent calls should target a different account/connection profile, and that it only makes sense before issuing queries. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to snowflake_list_connections for valid names is provided.

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