delete_connection

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that flows using the connection will break and notes the mutating nature. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description provides specific side effects. No contradiction.

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—two sentences and a warning—with no redundancy. The most critical information (destructive, irreversibility, dryRun flag) is front-loaded.

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 simple deletion tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the effect, side effects, and the dryRun logic. It does not describe the return value (e.g., what happens on success or failure), but the annotations and schema provide sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little over the schema. It does mention that dryRun=false is required for actual deletion, which reinforces the schema's description of the dryRun parameter. This is useful but not extensive extra meaning.

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 clearly states it deletes a Cognigy.AI connection, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_connection, update_connection, and get_connection. The warning about destructiveness and irreversibility reinforces the specific verb and resource.

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 implies usage when deleting a connection and notes that it is destructive, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or when to use a different tool). It also doesn't discuss prerequisites or post-conditions.

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