conn_create

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

The description mentions a specific behavior: it always asks the user which group the connection belongs to (SIEMPRE pregunta al usuario a que grupo pertenece). However, it does not disclose other side effects such as persistence, credential storage, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing connections. With no annotations provided, this partial transparency is insufficient 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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key behavior without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and every word earns its place.

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 description lacks context about return values, error cases, or prerequisites (beyond the group question). Given the tool's complexity (many parameters, multiple database types), the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, nor does it mention authentication or security considerations.

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 description does not add any information about the parameters. The input schema already provides descriptions for each property (e.g., dsn, host, mode), covering 100% of the parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool creates a new database connection (Crea una nueva conexion) and specifies supported types (PostgreSQL, MySQL o SQLite). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like conn_set or conn_switch, which imply modification or switching.

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 implies usage for creating new connections via the verb 'crea', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like conn_set or provide context on when to choose this tool over others. No exclusions or specific scenarios are mentioned.

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