fabricsDeleteFabricConnections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete all connections' implies a destructive, irreversible operation but doesn't specify permissions required, side effects, or what 'all connections' entails (e.g., all connections in a fabric). It lacks critical details like confirmation prompts, error handling, or impact on system state, making it inadequate for safe use.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Delete all connections,' which is front-loaded and wastes no space. While it's under-specified, it earns a high score for brevity and lack of redundancy, as every word serves a purpose in stating the core action.

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 complexity (destructive deletion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'connections' are, the scope of deletion, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that could have significant system impact, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'fabricId' clearly documented as 'The fabric id or name.' The description adds no parameter information beyond this. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Delete all connections' states a verb ('Delete') and resource ('connections'), but it's vague about scope and lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'connections' are (e.g., network connections, fabric connections) or distinguish from sibling tools like 'fabricsDeleteFabricConnection' (singular) or 'fabricsSetFabricConnections'. This is a tautology that mostly restates the tool name without meaningful elaboration.

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, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'fabricsDeleteFabricConnection' (singular deletion) or 'fabricsSetFabricConnections' (setting connections). This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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