use_connection

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail 'Takes effect immediately, no restart needed,' which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens to the current connection state, whether the switch is persistent, or error behavior if the profile is invalid. Given the annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds some but not rich context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and efficient, using two short sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and the added note about immediate effect is useful. It does not waste words, and the structure is clear. It could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the effect, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and immediate effect. It does not explain the return value (none expected) or error cases, but these are not critical for a switching operation. The description implicitly conveys that the active connection changes, which is sufficient. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters ('profile' and 'database') described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It repeats the notion of a named profile but does not clarify syntax, defaults, or interactions. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action: 'Switch to a named connection profile.' This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' (which implies establishing a new connection) and 'use_database' (which changes the database within the current connection). The mention of 'named connection profile' clarifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it loses a point for not making the differentiation explicit.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does. There is no mention of when to prefer 'use_connection' over 'connect' or 'use_database,' nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer usage from the name and context. This is a significant gap for a tool that has several closely related siblings.

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