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 behavioral burden. It does not state that the deletion is irreversible, whether it requires an active/draft workflow, or what happens when multiple connections exist between the same node pair.

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 well-formed sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification for a mutation tool.

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, five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context such as irreversibility and the meaning of sourceOutputIndex/targetInputIndex when several connections share the same endpoints.

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 100%, so the schema already documents workflowId, sourceNodeId, targetNodeId, and the two index parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline, which is the expected score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (connection between two nodes in a workflow), so the operation is unambiguous. It is largely distinguishable from siblings like create_connection and delete_node by name, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or dependency guidance. An agent must infer the context entirely from the name and schema.

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