delete_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a destructive action ('Delete'), but omits critical details such as whether the action is irreversible, what consequences occur (e.g., cascading deletion of associated data), whether it requires special permissions, or how errors are handled. This is insufficient for a deletion 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 extremely concise, with a single sentence and no fluff. However, it is so skeletal that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. While the structure is front-loaded with the action, it lacks any supplementary detail that would make the sentence valuable.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is starkly incomplete. An agent cannot determine expected return values, idempotency, failure modes, or side effects. The minimal complexity of a delete action does not excuse the absence of essential context.

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 compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'environment', 'connection_id', or 'provider_config_key' at all, providing zero additional meaning beyond the schema's bare field names. The agent has no context for what these strings represent or how they interact, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 action ('Delete') and a clear resource ('Nango connection'), making the tool's purpose explicit. It is not a tautology like 'process'. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_integration', the target resource is different, so the purpose is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_connection' or 'list_connections'. It does not mention any prerequisites, edge cases, or context in which deletion is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is inadequate given the large sibling family.

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