fb_configure_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies an upsert ('cadastra ou atualiza') but never discloses that credentials (user/password, default 'masterkey') are persisted, that save_to_file defaults to true, or whether an existing entry is overwritten, merged, or requires elevated permission.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the optional association features. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence could have been spent on parameter meaning instead of a single example.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most call-relevant behavior and parameter meaning undocumented. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this.

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% across 12 parameters, yet the description only touches two of them (projects and tags) and gives an example value for projects. Host, port, user, password, charset, alias, database, save_to_file, set_as_default, and description remain completely unexplained in both places.

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: registers or updates a database in the catalog, with the global/local distinction and the ability to bind projects and tags. It clearly separates itself from list/use siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from fb_create_config, the closest alternative.

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 mention of 'global ou local' scoping and the projects/tags association example, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs fb_create_config or fb_use_database, and no prerequisites (e.g. server reachability) are stated.

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