connect_byos_storage

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it validates the URL, smoke-tests the connection before saving, and requires a signed-in account. This adds good behavioral context beyond mere purpose, though it could mention error handling for failed connections.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the core purpose, second adds key behaviors and a prerequisite. Front-loads the most critical information.

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 connection tool with 2 parameters and output schema present, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, validation behavior, and prerequisite. Minor missing details like what 'smoke-tests' entails or the output schema are acceptable since output schema exists.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly mentions 'libsql_url' and 'auth_token' but does not explain their formats, purposes, or constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 connects a user's own libSQL/Turso database, replacing NeuroDock's hosted storage. It distinguishes from siblings like 'enable_hosted_storage' and 'disconnect_storage' by specifying the bring-your-own aspect.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when you want your own database. It implies not to use it if you want hosted storage. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling names provide context.

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