Ler/alterar DataSource H2

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: an automatic backup is taken on writes and the URL change can silently repoint to a different database. That is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey.

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: the dual-mode rule is front-loaded and the risk warning closes it. No filler or restated name/title.

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 3-param tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies mode behavior, backup side-effect, and the URL caveat. Only the shape of the read result is left unstated, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description maps them to url/username/password and adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (jdbc/pjeCalcDS DataSource from META-INF/context.xml) and both verbs (read vs. alter) conditioned on argument presence. The resource is distinct from the config_* siblings (ports, memory, token), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The no-args/with-args rule gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the two modes and the ATENÇÃO note warns about the URL consequence. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. config_ler or db_* tools) for related tasks.

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