connector_protect_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions confirm and dry_run parameters but fails to describe authentication, rate limits, side effects, return value details, or error scenarios. The mention of a non-existent 'settings' parameter further reduces transparency.

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 short and front-loaded, listing arguments and return value efficiently. The structure is clear, but the inclusion of an extra parameter ('settings') introduces unnecessary noise.

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 complexity of a proxy tool (network request, destructive action) and lack of output schema details, the description is incomplete. It omits error handling, response structure beyond 'raw response or preview', and important behavioral context like idempotency or prerequisites.

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. It explains console_id, path, confirm, and dry_run, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it includes a 'settings' parameter not in the schema, misleading about available inputs. This inconsistency lowers reliability.

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 it proxies a DELETE request to the Protect Application via Cloud Connector, distinguishing it from other HTTP methods. However, it mentions a 'settings' argument not present in the input schema, which could cause confusion.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other HTTP methods). It lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow.

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