conn_set

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as idempotency, overwriting behavior, validation, or error handling. It only states the basic update action, leaving significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the purpose. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes.

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 simplicity and the presence of parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but lacks context on failure modes, return values, or side effects. It does not mention whether the transaction is persistent or if reconnection is needed, which might be important in a database 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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters (key, name, value), including valid values for key. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating that a field is updated. It does not enrich the meaning of parameters further.

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 tool's action: updating a field of an existing connection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like conn_create, conn_rename, etc., by focusing on field updates.

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 that this tool is for updating existing connections, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives. No guidance is provided on scenarios like batch updates or when to prefer another tool.

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