mysql_use_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'switch' without indicating whether this changes a session/connection state, whether it persists across calls, whether it validates the database name, or what happens if the switch fails. No side effects or safety information is disclosed.

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, concise sentence that gets to the point. It is not verbose or redundant. However, it may be overly terse, lacking any contextual details that could fit without losing conciseness. Still, it earns a 4 for efficient structure.

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 that this is a state-changing tool (switching database) with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the effect on subsequent operations, the role of the alias parameter, or error handling. In the context of sibling tools like mysql_execute_query, this tool's behavior is crucial to understand, but the description does not provide that context.

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%, meaning both parameters (alias and database_name) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it neither helps nor hurts. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: switching to a different MySQL database. It identifies the resource (MySQL database) and the specific verb 'switch'. However, it lacks additional scope detail (e.g., what 'different' means, whether it sets the default for subsequent operations), and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mysql_list_databases or mysql_get_all_schemas, though the action is distinct enough.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool relative to siblings (e.g., before executing queries) or any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied by the tool name but not articulated.

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