deployado_connect_database

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit by disclosing the actual side effect -- an env var containing the connection URL is written into the app -- which is not derivable from annotations or schema. It stops short of saying whether an existing env var of the same name is overwritten, whether a redeploy/restart is required, or what the tool returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately after. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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?

Adequate for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema: the effect on the app is clear, but an agent still cannot tell whether the app must be redeployed afterward, whether connecting twice or reconnecting with a different env_var_name produces duplicates, or what confirmation the call returns.

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%, including defaults for driver and env_var_name, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only hints at the env-var behavior implicitly via env_var_name and adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema -- 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 verb and resource ('Connect an app to a database') and immediately explains the mechanism ('injects the connection URL as an environment variable'), which separates it from siblings like deployado_disconnect_database, deployado_set_env, and deployado_create_database without needing to open the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the description -- you connect an app when you want its DB URL available -- but there is no explicit when/when-not, no prerequisite that the database must already exist (deployado_create_database) and the app must exist (deployado_create_app), and no mention of the inverse deployado_disconnect_database or of deployado_set_env as an alternative for manual env vars.

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