update_connection

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent update. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that only provided fields will be changed, preventing an agent from assuming a full replacement update.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and clarifies the critical partial-update behavior. There is no filler or redundant 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?

While the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, the description is thin on usage context for a 7-parameter mutation tool. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or what happens with nested objects, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description does not detail individual parameters but does add general semantics about partial updates, which slightly augments 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Atualiza uma conexão existente' clearly states it updates an existing connection. It also adds the crucial partial-update scope, 'Apenas os campos fornecidos serão alterados', which distinguishes it from create/delete/get connection operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_connection or test_connection. The word 'existente' implies it is not for creating, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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