update_connection_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the default compact confirmation and the verbose flag for a full schema response, adding some transparency. However, it omits details on permissions, reversibility, or whether the update is partial or full replacement, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second explains the response behavior. No fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 3-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the core purpose and response behavior, but does not explain the structure of the schemas object or potential edge cases. The schema partially compensates, but the description could be more complete for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight clarification about the enable/disable semantics of the 'schemas' parameter and the effect of 'verbose', providing marginal value beyond the schema descriptions themselves.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update schema config') and its scope ('enable/disable schemas, tables, or columns for a connection'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_connection_schema (reading) and reload_schema (refreshing), making its purpose unambiguous.

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: this tool is for modifying schema configuration. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using get_connection_schema for reading or reload_schema for refreshing. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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