connector_network_delete

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the destructive nature (DELETE) and safety mechanisms (confirm required, dry_run available). However, it omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, and consequences of execution. The mention of 'settings' param not in schema is confusing.

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 relatively concise but includes an undocumented parameter (settings), which reduces clarity. It could be better structured with separate sections for behavior and parameters.

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 lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description covers key safety and testing features (confirm, dry_run). However, it does not explain return values beyond 'raw response or preview', and the 'settings' discrepancy undermines completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning for three of four actual parameters (console_id, path, confirm, dry_run). It explains dry_run as preview without sending. However, it erroneously includes 'settings' which is not in the schema, and does not clarify the confirm parameter's type mismatch (allows string but description says boolean).

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 proxies a DELETE request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector, accurately reflecting its purpose and distinguishing it from sibling tools like connector_network_get, patch, post, and put.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., POST for creation, PUT for updates). The description only explains parameters, not usage context or prerequisites.

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