use_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Switch to a different database' implies a state change operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, affects existing connections/queries, has side effects on other tools, or what happens if the database doesn't exist. For a mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a simple tool with one parameter.

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 appears to change system state (switching databases) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'switching' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or potential error conditions. Given the database context and sibling tools, more behavioral context is needed.

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% with the parameter 'database' fully documented as 'Database name'. The description adds no additional semantic context about what constitutes a valid database name, whether it must exist, or format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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') and target resource ('database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'list_databases' that might involve database selection or connection management.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'connect', 'list_databases', and 'create_database', there's no indication of whether this is for connection switching, context switching, or database selection within an existing connection.

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