connect_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'connect' implies a setup/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this creates a persistent connection, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns confirmation data, or handles connection errors. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that creates database connections (likely a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after connection, whether connections are persistent, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by the nested parameters object and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more complete context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid engine values, or clarify the structure of the parameters object beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 ('connect') and resource ('external database as a data source in MindsDB'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_databases' or 'query', which would require more specific language about this being a setup/configuration operation rather than a query or listing function.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_databases' for viewing existing connections or 'query' for interacting with connected databases. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or appropriate scenarios for database connection setup.

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