sas_connection_activate

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful side-effect disclosure — that the Workspace's SAS sessions restart on the new connection and new notebook kernels pick it up. The restart is the key behavioral fact an agent needs and would not get from annotations. It stops short of noting any live-session disruption to running queries.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed by its two concrete consequences. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the state change and its downstream effects. Adding where to obtain the connection name (or a prerequisite to save first) would close the remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter ('name') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. Calling it a 'saved SAS Viya connection' does imply the name identifies an existing saved connection, which is helpful, but no format, case sensitivity, or source of valid values (e.g., sas_connections_state) is given.

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?

Specific verb ('make ... the active one') and resource ('saved SAS Viya connection'), so the agent knows exactly what state change occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as connection_activate or use_connection, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 effect described (activate a saved connection), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over connection_activate, use_connection, or sas_connections_state, nor any prerequisite that the connection must already be saved.

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