conn_project_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that an association is removed, but does not disclose whether the connection itself is affected, whether the action is reversible, or what the outcome/return value is.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and it is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that it omits context that would help an agent understand side effects and usage boundaries.

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 mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about side effects, reversibility, and expected response. The simple parameter set reduces the need for detail, but the missing behavioral information leaves the description incomplete.

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%, and the only parameter 'project' is already described as 'Ruta del proyecto'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Elimina la asociacion de conexion') and the target resource ('de un proyecto'), making it distinct from sibling tools like conn_delete, conn_set, and conn_switch. It conveys a specific unlink operation rather than a general delete or create action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as conn_delete or conn_set. The description implies the use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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