conn_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the change is session-scoped and not permanent, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose validation behavior, effects of switching, or error conditions, leaving some uncertainty about side effects.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the core operation and scope, the second provides the key alternative. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple connection-switching tool with two well-schema-documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, the session scope, and the related default-setting tool. It omits return/error details, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is not a major gap.

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% for both parameters ('name' and 'project'), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Cambia la conexion activa (de sesion)' clearly states it switches the active session connection. It also distinguishes itself from conn_set_default, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does versus related tools.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by saying 'Para cambiar el default permanente usa conn_set_default,' naming a specific alternative for the permanent-default case. This tells the agent when not to use this tool and where to route that request.

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