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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds important behavioral detail: the cutoff is relative to execution time, so repeat invocations may delete newly aged rows, and the scope covers every caller's rows within the selected personal or team-owned connection.

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 two compact sentences with the destructive action front-loaded. The parenthetical qualifications are dense but all carry operationally relevant meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of schema or annotations.

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?

Given the output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies enough context for an agent to call this destructive tool correctly. It covers the deletion target, ownership scope, connection resolution, default age cutoff, and time-relative repeat behavior.

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 75%, so the schema already documents much of the parameter surface. The description adds useful semantics for the connection parameter, including id-only lookup, disabled connections, optional team scoping, and personal versus team ownership resolution.

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 states a specific verb and resource: deleting audit rows older than N days for one connection. It also defines the connection resolution scope and the ownership boundary, making it clearly distinct from a read-only sibling such as connection_audit_recent.

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 gives clear context for which connection forms are valid, including disabled connections and personal versus team-owned connections. It does not explicitly name the read-only alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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