database_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: closing any open project and parameter applicability (db_type values, ip_address for PostgreSQL only). It does not cover potential loss of unsaved work, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a line. It front-loads the primary action and side effect, then adds parameter details efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 simplicity (no output schema, 3 parameters), the description covers the primary purpose, side effect, and parameter constraints. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though mentioning the absence of return value or that it sets the current database context could enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining db_type valid values ('Disk', 'PostgreSQL') and that ip_address applies only to PostgreSQL. The required db_name is not elaborated, but the description adds meaning for two of three parameters.

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 ('Switch') and resource ('database connection'), clearly stating the action. It also notes the side effect of closing any open project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like database_list or database_folder_open.

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 implies that this tool is used to change the active database connection, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like database_list (to list databases) or database_folder_open. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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