remove_connection

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it removes even invalid entries and drops the cached client/tunnel, which tells the agent this is destructive to runtime state. It omits failure behavior when the name doesn't exist and whether the removal is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The primary action comes first and the side effects follow in the same breath.

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, annotation-free, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the action and two side effects but leaves out error behavior, idempotency, and confirmation that the effect is permanent. An agent still has to guess at the edges.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. 'By name' confirms the sole parameter is the connection identifier and that invalid entries are still matched, but it doesn't clarify whether this is a display name, ID, or the registered key, nor the expected format.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: remove an ES connection by name. This clearly separates it from add_connection, update_connection and test_connection in the sibling list. The phrase 'from the layer it lives in' is somewhat opaque domain jargon, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it wants a connection gone. There is no statement of when to prefer update_connection, no prerequisites, and no note about what to do if the connection might still be in use.

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