Switch Connection

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and idempotent behavior, but description adds critical context: clears caches and blocks in-flight tools from further API requests. This goes beyond annotation signals and warns of disruptive 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?

Single sentence front-loads the core action ('Switch active e-arveldaja connection') followed by key behavioral details. No filler, no redundancy, every phrase earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, side effects, and parameter meaning adequately. However, it could clarify what 'blocked' entails or mention that the previous connection's in-flight tools are affected, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'index' with description 'Connection index from list_connections'. Description does not add any semantic meaning or usage tips beyond what schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Switch' and resource 'active e-arveldaja connection', with additional details about side effects (clearing caches, blocking in-flight tools). Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'clear_cache' by specifying it's about connection switching.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'clear_cache' or 'list_connections'. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where switching is appropriate, nor does it exclude misuse.

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