delete_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. It discloses the destructive nature of the operation and the batch behavior, but omits details such as permanence, potential cascading effects on related entities, permission requirements, or error behavior. The mention of a 'ctx' parameter not present in the schema adds slight confusion.

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 front-loaded and structured with Args/Returns sections, but it contains redundancy between the first two sentences and repeats parameter information already present in the schema. It is not excessively long, but not as tight as it could be.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers single and batch deletion modes. However, with no annotations, the description leaves out critical behavioral details such as whether deletion is permanent, if there are side effects on connected components or crossing points, and what happens if the connection does not exist. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed, but safety and impact context is lacking.

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 input schema already includes full descriptions for both 'id' and 'ids', including the behavior when 'ids' is provided. The description mostly repeats this information and introduces a 'ctx' parameter that is not in the schema, adding no extra semantic value beyond what is already documented.

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 the tool's function—deleting connections from the architecture—with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly mentions batch support via the 'ids' parameter, distinguishing it from other delete tools in the sibling set.

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 clear usage context for single vs. batch deletion and explains which parameter to use. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternative delete tools or any exclusions, though the resource type is unambiguous.

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