use_connection

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the genuinely important behavioral fact that the switch is global and retroactively affects all tools, apps, and new notebook kernels. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though it does not cover persistence across sessions or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying the action and its consequence, plus a minimal Args block. Nothing is wasted and the highest-value information comes first.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The global side-effect disclosure fills the main gap, but the tool's relationship to connection_activate (the one ambiguity that could cause a wrong tool choice) is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does partially: it defines 'name' as the name of a saved connection and routes to list_connections for discovery. It does not state the format, case sensitivity, or failure behavior on an unknown name.

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 SingleStore connection') and goes further by naming the effect on the environment. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling 'connection_activate', which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Points the agent to list_connections for valid names, which is useful implied usage, but says nothing about when to prefer this over connection_activate, connection_save, or connection_sso_sign_in, nor any prerequisites for switching.

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