fm_set_connection

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Switch' implies a state change, but no details on side effects (e.g., current connection closure, error behavior for invalid names). For a simple action, the transparency is adequate but could be improved.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description is minimally complete for a simple switch action, but lacks context on return values, success signals, or error conditions. Additional completeness would improve usability.

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 the single parameter, which already includes an example. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb 'switch' and resource 'predefined FileMaker database connection'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fm_connect or fm_list_connections by indicating it operates on a predefined connection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling connection tools (fm_connect, fm_set_current_connection, etc.), the description should clarify that this is for switching to a predefined named connection rather than establishing a new one. No usage context or when-not-to-use is provided.

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