conn_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Elimina') and, more importantly, mandates user confirmation before setting confirm=true. It does not mention permanence or cascading effects, but the key safety behavior is clearly stated.

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: one short declarative sentence plus a focused safety warning. Every word earns its place and the critical instruction 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 2-parameter deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema cover purpose, parameters, and the essential confirmation gate. It lacks some side-effect detail but is otherwise complete enough for safe invocation.

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 fully explains both 'name' and 'confirm'. The description mostly reinforces the confirm requirement already present in the schema without adding substantial new parameter 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 'Elimina una conexion' clearly states the tool's verb and resource: deleting a connection. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like conn_create, conn_set, or conn_rename.

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 'IMPORTANTE: pide confirmacion al usuario antes de llamar esta tool con confirm=true' provides a critical precondition for safe invocation. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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