Switch Database

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context—'Takes effect immediately, no restart needed'—telling the agent the operation has immediate runtime impact without a server restart. It also clarifies the scope to the current server. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero waste: the first states the core action and scope, the second adds a relevant behavioral note. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter utility with annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description plus schema give an agent enough to call it correctly. It could mention error behavior or that the switch affects subsequent operations, but 'active database' is sufficiently clear. The minor gap keeps it at 4.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, including the Redis variant ('or the database number on Redis'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the semantic weight; the 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?

The description states a precise action: 'Switch the active database on the current server.' It clearly identifies the verb and resource, and 'on the current server' distinguishes it from connection-level operations like use_connection. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives implied usage context: it targets a database on the current server, which hints at when to use this versus use_connection or connect. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the 'current server' scoping and 'takes effect immediately' provide some directional context.

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