Removes a specified connection from a project using project and connection IDs, with optional confirmation to help prevent accidental deletion.
EXPERIMENTAL — Phase 3, never tested at all (spec/02-tools.md).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| connection_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful signal — that the tool is untested and experimental — but says nothing about what is destroyed, whether dependent jobs break, or whether it is reversible.
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?
It is a single short line with no filler and the warning is front-loaded, so it is structurally clean. However, brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — the one sentence spends all its words on project status instead of tool behavior.
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, high-consequence tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain impact, confirmation semantics, and failure modes. It provides none of these, leaving an agent unable to call it safely or predict consequences.
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 0% across 3 parameters, and the description supplies no meaning at all. The critical ambiguity is entirely unaddressed: 'confirm' is a boolean defaulting to false, and nothing explains whether the deletion is skipped or proceeds without it.
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 never states what the tool does; the only content is an experimental/untested warning. Only the tool name and annotation title ('Delete Connection') tell an agent this deletes a connection — the text itself is effectively a status note rather than a purpose statement.
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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as update_connection or delete_project, nor any prerequisite (ownership, confirmation, irreversibility) mentioned. The 'EXPERIMENTAL — never tested' note hints at caution but gives no actionable when/when-not rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.