table_connect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful session-level semantics (multiple connections coexist; table_id selects among them) but does not say what happens if the table is not running or how long the active selection persists.

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 core action front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only non-redundant multi-connection detail. Nothing to trim.

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 one-param tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the target table is not running.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does explain that table_id selects among already-connected tables, which is meaningful, but it never clarifies whether the first call's table_id opens a new connection or must match an existing one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Connect to a running table and make it active.' An agent can tell this apart from table_disconnect, but the sibling table_reconnect is never mentioned, so the connect-vs-reconnect distinction is left to inference.

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?

'Supports multiple connected tables; pass table_id on later calls to select explicitly' gives real usage context for the multi-table case. However, there is no guidance on when to use table_reconnect instead, or on prerequisites such as the table needing to be running.

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