rewrite_connection_string

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so excellently. It reveals side effects (clearing PermissionBindings), return value (count of replacements), and risk constraints (copy, closed file, protected paths). This gives the agent a clear safety and operational picture without needing additional metadata.

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 three tight sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and target, then efficiently adds side effect, return value, and risk caveats. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, target, side effects, return type, and critical safety prerequisites. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and avoid common pitfalls.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of what 'find' might target ('a server/db name, file path, URL') and clarifying the scope ('across Section1.m'), which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find/replace a literal substring ... across Section1.m inside a .pbix's DataMashup'. It clearly states the primary action, the target location, and an important side effect (clearing PermissionBindings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_data_source or get_datamashup_info.

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 gives clear context for use: it's for rewriting connection strings in a .pbix's DataMashup and includes explicit risk warnings ('work on a COPY', '.pbix must be CLOSED', 'refuses protected client paths'). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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