conn_set_default

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior: the default activates automatically when entering the project. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing default), required permissions, or reversibility, which leaves gaps 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 two short sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with the action and then the behavioral effect. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a small tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the purpose and key behavior. It could elaborate on what constitutes a group or what happens on failure, but it is not severely incomplete for its simplicity.

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 100% because the 'name' parameter has a description matching the tool's purpose. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints, so it sits at the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'Marca una conexion como el default de su grupo' (Marks a connection as the default of its group). It distinguishes from siblings like conn_set_group (which sets group membership) and conn_switch (which switches active connection), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 by explaining that the default activates automatically when entering the project, which implies when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like conn_set or conn_switch, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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