delete_connection

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

The description details exactly what is deleted (connection, glossary, metrics, dictionary, sample queries, knowledge) and the return value. This exceeds the annotations which only mark it as destructive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, scope of deletion, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it destroys, when to use, and return value. It is complete given the context.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema is already clear. The tool description does not repeat parameter details but adds context about the deletion impact, which is useful. No additional parameter documentation needed.

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 verb 'delete', the resource 'connection', and specifies it is permanent and removes all associated metadata (glossary, metrics, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_connection or delete_glossary_term.

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 explicitly advises when to use: 'use only to retire a database you no longer query.' It also warns of irreversibility. However, it does not mention alternatives for non-destructive scenarios (e.g., disconnecting or cleaning metadata separately), though sibling tools exist for those purposes.

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