attach_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful detail about runtime behavior, supported db_type values, and the meaning of remote/dump/auto modes. However, it does not disclose side effects, required privileges, persistence of the attachment, or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first line. The only minor filler is the parenthetical '(feature B)', but overall every major sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers essential domain concepts like db_type and mode, and an output schema exists for return values. However, for an 8-parameter mutation-like tool with no annotations, it omits prerequisites, side effects, and details about what 'name' refers to, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 add meaning. It enriches db_type with supported values and explains the mode enum semantics beyond the raw choices. Most other parameters are self-explanatory from their names, but 'name' and the exact connection semantics remain under-specified.

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 purpose: attaching a new database at runtime without restarting the server. It names the operation, the resource, and key constraints, making it distinct from read-only or analysis tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like test_connection.

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 phrase 'without restarting the server' gives a clear usage context: use this when you need to attach a database during runtime rather than through a restart/config change. It also mentions supported db_type values and modes, which clarifies common variants. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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