Workspace context

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

Annotations only give a blanket readOnlyHint=false, which would mislead for the two read actions; the description corrects this with a per-action safety classification (info/list_profiles = READ_ONLY, switch_profile = WRITE). It also adds that tokens are never returned. Good added context beyond annotations, though error/rate-limit behavior is unstated.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the scope comes first, the safety classification second. It is tight and information-dense, though the safety line reads a bit like a field tag rather than prose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations plus the per-action safety line cover the behavioral essentials for a small 3-param tool. Only minor gaps (side effects of switch_profile, persistence of the new profile) remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum values and dry_run/profile semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description names the context fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 pair (identify or change) plus the exact resource (the Databricks workspace this server talks to) and enumerates the context fields. It is clearly differentiated from compute/cluster/warehouse siblings, none of which touch connection context.

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?

Enumerates the three actions and their intent (info = current context, list_profiles = config profiles, switch_profile = reconnect), and the safety classification steers an agent toward the safe reads. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or any preconditions/exclusions.

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