map_delete_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'Delete' implies a destructive action, it does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, whether it requires special permissions, what happens if the id does not exist, or any side effects. The description is minimal and does not provide additional context about the operation's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 sentence of seven words: 'Delete a connection by id.' It is extremely concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary words or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately brief, but it lacks important behavioral context. It does not describe the return value, error conditions, or any side effects. Given that annotations are absent and there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the expected behavior of the operation to be fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with its description 'Connection id'. The tool description's phrase 'by id' simply restates this, adding no new meaning. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'connection', making the tool's action unambiguous. It also specifies the scope 'by id', which identifies how the operation targets a connection. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like map_delete_node and map_delete_sticky, which operate on different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, caveats, or mention that it is the appropriate tool for deleting a connection. There is no explicit context about when to prefer this over map_update_connection or map_delete_node, so the agent is left to infer the usage from the name and sibling list.

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