action_add_mongodb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. Beyond stating that it 'adds' a connection and exposes two context variables, it omits whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a connection already exists, whether authentication or secrets are required, or any error conditions. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, purposeful sentences without any filler. The primary action is stated first, and the concrete outcome (the ctx variables) follows immediately. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's function immediately scannable.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimal but still incomplete. It doesn't explain how the MongoDB connection is established (e.g., connecting string, secret reference), whether any setup or special permissions are needed, or what the returned result looks like. Given the sibling tools for other databases, an agent might not know if additional configuration (like a secret) is required beforehand.

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 schema already documents the endpoint parameter thoroughly with a pattern and example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but it also doesn't reinforce the format or relationship between the endpoint and the MongoDB connection. 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 a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('MongoDB connection'), and it names the concrete effect ('Provides ctx.MONGODB_CLIENT and ctx.MONGODB'). This distinguishes it unambiguously from sibling tools like action_add_postgresql or action_add_s3, which handle other resource types.

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 implies usage context (use this when you need a MongoDB connection in an endpoint's context) but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives. It doesn't discuss prerequisites such as whether a secret must exist or whether the endpoint must already be created, which would help an agent decide between this and the secret-related tools nearby.

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