Update Database Connection

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields and stored credentials are preserved'), a clear limitation ('Secret rotation is not exposed'), a precondition ('The ID must exist in the selected workspace'), and response scope. These go well beyond what the annotations express, giving the agent accurate expectations about side effects and return content.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then precondition, partial-update behavior, and the secret-rotation caveat with response shape. The only minor blemish is 'through CommandBus,' which adds implementation detail without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 an 11-parameter, 1-required mutation tool with zero parameter descriptions, the description covers the essentials: what is updated, the workspace precondition, merge semantics, the secrets limitation, and result scope. The presence of an output schema and self-documenting enums offsets the missing per-parameter prose. Only permission requirements and error behavior for a nonexistent connectionId are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies high-level semantics—connectionId must reference an existing item, omitted fields are preserved (explaining why all 11 params are optional), and no secret parameter exists. However, it does not explain individual parameters beyond what names/types/enums already convey, leaving host/port/driver/sslMode/database/readOnly/sqlitePath semantics to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Updates saved connection metadata through CommandBus.' Among siblings like create_connection, delete_connection, list_connections, and test_connection, the term 'saved connection metadata' clearly marks this as the modifier of existing connection configs and distinguishes it from query/execution tools. No ambiguity about what action is performed.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'Updates saved connection metadata' and 'The ID must exist in the selected workspace' suggest the agent reaches for this when editing an existing connection. However, there are no explicit when-not-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., ssh.update_connection for SSH connections, test_connection for connectivity), or exclusion conditions naming sibling tools.

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