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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: ownership scoping, a 404 for entries the caller does not own (deliberately not revealing existence), and an administrative restriction on system keys. It does not say what a successful call returns, but the added details go well beyond the annotations.

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 core sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the trailing '| EN: connection, credential, delete, remove, revoke' keyword list reads like search metadata rather than agent-usable guidance, and the mixed German/English presentation adds friction without 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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope, error behavior on foreign ids, and admin-only keys, which is most of what an agent needs. The only gap is the success response and whether any dependent records are affected by the removal.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as coming from onto_connection_index. The description only restates 'per id', adding no new meaning such as format or validation expectations, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Verbindung per id loeschen'), making the operation unambiguous and clearly distinct from onto_connection_save, onto_connection_index and onto_connection_check. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 provides real usage context: only the caller's own entries can be deleted, foreign ids yield 404, and system keys are reserved for administration. However, it never states when to choose this over onto_connection_save or how to obtain the id (only the schema points at onto_connection_index), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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