delete_cms_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required permission scope but fails to state irreversibility, side effects (e.g., whether associated articles or settings are deleted), or any confirmation behavior—critical gaps for a destructive delete operation.

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 short sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no redundant or filler text. Every word serves a purpose.

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 destructive delete tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema that only covers return values, the description is severely under-informative. It omits parameter explanations, irreversibility warnings, and any behavioral context needed to invoke the tool safely.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for both required parameters (project_id and connection_id), and the description does not mention or explain either parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the bare integer names, leaving an agent to infer their roles entirely.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('CMS connection'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_cms_connections, create_cms_connection, and test_cms_connection. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 only states a permission requirement ('Requires cms:manage') and offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the scope, and no exclusions. A user must infer that this permanently removes a connection with no additional context.

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