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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'delete' but discloses nothing about reversibility, required permissions, whether removing by source/target node deletes multiple edges at once, or behavior when the edge does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. However, for a destructive tool with three alternative deletion modes, this brevity shades into under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, where the description omits the crucial point that edgeId and the node-based parameters are competing deletion strategies. An agent could pass conflicting parameters without warning.

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 80%, so the schema already explains edgeId, workspaceId, sourceNodeId and targetNodeId. The description adds only the conceptual framing that a connection links two nodes; it adds no syntax or selection logic beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a connection (edge)') and clarifies the ambiguous term 'connection' with 'edge'. It is distinguishable from delete_node and connect_nodes, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus delete_node, delete_transition, or connect_nodes, and no indication that the three delete modes (by edgeId, by sourceNodeId, by targetNodeId) are mutually exclusive alternatives.

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