Delete a connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (flows stop working), the mechanism (runs pac connection delete), and the confirm flag behavior (dry run without it). This is strong but doesn't mention permission requirements or whether deletion is reversible, so it's slightly incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and side effect, the second gives the underlying command, and the third explains the confirm requirement. Each sentence earns its place and the key warning is front-loaded.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: destructive effect, dry-run behavior, and underlying command. It doesn't mention return values or background execution, but those are covered in the schema descriptions. It's adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could explicitly state that deletion is irreversible without a backup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the confirm requirement and points out that connectionId comes from cs_list_connections, but these are already in the schema. No additional semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a connection by id.' It also names the side effect (flows/tools stop working until rebound) and the underlying command (pac connection delete). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cs_update_connection or cs_create_connection.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: to permanently remove a connection, and it warns about the impact on bound flows/tools. It also explains the critical precondition that confirm:true is required to avoid a dry run. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full when/not-when guide.

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