eliminar_conexion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool operates per interface/port, not per device pair, which is critical for correct usage. It does not overstate capabilities and implies a single-cable deletion. This is sufficient for a straightforward operation, though it could mention error cases (e.g., nonexistent interface) for completeness.

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 concise and well-structured: the main purpose is stated first, then a clarification of the per-port behavior, and finally a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. The example is particularly effective and front-loaded before any less critical details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the core operation and the critical nuance about multiple cables. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device existence) but these are implied and not essential for a basic delete operation. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the 'interfaz' parameter as a specific interface on the device ('interfaz concreta') and providing an example that clarifies both 'dispositivo' (device name) and 'interfaz' (e.g., GigabitEthernet0/0). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema fields, though it could explicitly state that 'dispositivo' is the device hostname.

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 verb ('Elimina') and resource ('el cable conectado a una interfaz concreta de un dispositivo'), distinguishing it from siblings like eliminar_dispositivo or limpiar_topologia. The example reinforces the exact action and parameterization, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: Packet Tracer deletes by port, not device pair, so users must specify the interface when multiple cables connect two devices. It includes a concrete example that illustrates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., to delete a device). This is clear and helpful, though it could go slightly further.

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