connect

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only), openWorldHint=true (may have side effects), idempotentHint=true (safe to repeat), and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds that the connection is not persisted to disk, only kept in session, which is useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't mention credential security or failure behavior, but with annotations covering most safety, this is adequate.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action, then adds the lifetime detail. No filler, perfectly concise.

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?

The tool is straightforward (connect with credentials). The description explains the alias's role and session persistence, which are the non-obvious aspects. The output schema is absent, but the description doesn't need to explain return values since it's not critical for invocation. Minor gaps: no mention of what happens if connection fails or how to handle existing aliases, but overall complete.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds the alias parameter's purpose (for use_connection later), which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the host default. This is a good supplement to the schema.

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 to a MySQL server), the resource (MySQL server), and the key purpose (runtime connection with explicit credentials). It also distinguishes its scope (session-only, not persisted) which differentiates it from persistence-oriented tools.

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?

It explicitly mentions the session lifetime and alias usage, implying when to use (runtime connections) versus a persistent setup. It doesn't name alternatives like use_connection, but the mention of 'use_connection later' hints at the workflow. The sibling list includes use_connection, and the description implies connect is for creating, use_connection for switching.

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