connection_activate

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

Annotations only mark it non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds real behavior beyond that by disclosing that activation also performs a connection test and that token-based connections may require a sign-in step first. It still does not say what happens on a failed test or whether the previous active connection is affected.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the caveat demoted to a parenthetical. No filler, though the caveat sentence could be slightly sharper about the required sign-in flow.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and one prerequisite, which is the minimum viable. It omits failure behavior, state side effects on the previously active connection, and any permissions requirement, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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% and the single 'name' property is undocumented. The phrase 'a saved connection' weakly implies the parameter is the name of a previously saved connection, but the description adds no format or lookup details to compensate for the empty schema.

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 (activate) and resource (saved connection), and adds the secondary effect of testing it. It is distinguishable from connection_test or connection_save, but it never names the closest sibling use_connection, so the boundary 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?

Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated. The parenthetical about token connections needing a sign-in hints at the connection_sso_sign_in prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to use_connection or connection_test.

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