Switch Connection

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: caches are cleared and in-flight tools are blocked from further API requests. That side-effect disclosure is exactly what annotations cannot convey. It could go further by saying whether the previous connection's state is lost.

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 tight sentences with the action stated first and consequences second; no filler. 'Clears caches' is slightly vague about scope, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and a simple one-parameter mutation, the description covers the essential side-effects an agent must know before calling. It lacks only the recovery/precondition angle (e.g., what happens to the previously active connection).

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% and the schema already documents the single index parameter with its source. The description adds no format, range, or validity detail, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource: switch the active e-arveldaja connection. An agent can distinguish it from list_connections (which supplies the index) without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parameter description ('Connection index from list_connections') hints at the sequence list_connections -> switch_connection, but the description itself gives no when-to-use condition, no mention of multi-connection scenarios, and no exclusions.

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