use_connection

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

No annotations are present, so the description must provide behavioral details. It only states the action but omits consequences (e.g., closing previous connection, what happens if the name is invalid, session state changes). For a state-mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and critical details. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices clarity. It could list the prerequisite (saved connections) in a front-loaded manner.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description should still explain the effect on the session, error handling, and relationship to other tools. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'name' parameter. It does not clarify that 'name' must match a saved connection identifier or that it is case-sensitive. The agent is left to infer from the tool name alone.

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 ('Switch to') and the resource ('saved Redis connection'). It distinguishes from siblings like test_connection and delete_connection by focusing on selecting an existing connection. However, it could be improved by explicitly noting that the connection becomes active for subsequent operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that list_saved_connections should be used first to get available names, or that test_connection can verify connectivity. Without this, an agent might use it without proper context.

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