update_connection

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

Annotations supply only idempotentHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so meaningfully: it discloses that the tool is untested, that the PATCH-body shape is assumed rather than confirmed, and that the payload could require a JSON-Patch array instead. That is exactly the kind of risk context an agent needs before invoking an experimental mutation, though it omits permissions, partial-update semantics for omitted fields, and error behavior.

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 EXPERIMENTAL warning is correctly front-loaded, and the spec reference is defensible provenance. However, the hedging ('this is an *assumption*, not a confirmed fact … could just as easily match') runs long for the amount of actionable content delivered.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, no annotation coverage beyond idempotency, and zero documented parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified. It flags the experimental risk well but says nothing about which fields are updatable, what is returned, or failure modes.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: project_id, connection_id, name, description and properties are never explained. The one bit of added meaning is 'flat partial-object PATCH body', which implies omitted fields are left unchanged, but it is framed as an unverified assumption.

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 never states in plain terms what the tool does; the verb 'update' and the resource 'connection' are only inferable from the name and the incidental phrase 'PATCH body'. Most of the text is meta-commentary about provenance and uncertainty, so an agent cannot confirm the operation from the description alone.

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?

It tells the agent to 're-verify live' rather than when to call the tool, and it never contrasts update_connection with siblings like update_project or update_job as alternatives. The sibling names appear only as analogies for the body format, not as routing guidance.

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