fabricsDeleteFabricConnection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on connected devices), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, efficient sentence ('Delete a specific connection.') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks (e.g., irreversibility), success criteria, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool in a complex system (with many sibling tools), more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with both parameters ('fabricId' and 'connectionId') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Delete') and the target ('a specific connection'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fabricsDeleteFabric' (which deletes entire fabrics) and 'fabricsDeleteFabricConnections' (which likely deletes multiple connections). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (fabric connection) beyond the tool name, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a fabric ID and connection ID), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletions), or refer to sibling tools like 'fabricsDeleteFabricConnections' for comparison. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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