sas_connection_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that — that the associated sign-in is destroyed too — but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, or confirmation behavior.

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?

One efficient sentence with the destructive verb and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally sound.

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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema operation with a single identifier parameter, the description covers the key side effect but omits irreversibility, required privileges, and the effect on any currently active session using that connection.

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?

Only one parameter ('name') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the name identifies (saved connection label vs. profile vs. host). For a single obvious identifier this is adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a saved SAS Viya connection') and even names a secondary effect ('and its sign-in'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as connection_delete or sas_connection_save, so the agent gets no routing help beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the connection be deactivated first), and no mention of alternatives like sas_viya_sign_out or connection_delete. The agent must infer all usage context.

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