Remove a domain connection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Nothing in the domain changes,' which tells the agent the destruction is limited to the stored connection and does not affect live domain data — exactly the reassurance an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded and the risk-relevant scope note follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus the 'nothing in the domain changes' note cover the destructive/idempotent profile. The only shortfall is the undocumented 'alias' parameter, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter tool.

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% and the description never mentions the single required parameter 'alias'. The agent must infer from the parameter name alone that it identifies the stored connection to remove; the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation as the low-coverage rule requires.

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 (remove) and a specific resource (a stored domain connection), so the agent knows exactly what is deleted. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from connection_add or connections_list, though the name/verb pairing makes the distinction easy to infer.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus connection_add or connections_list, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the connection must already exist) are stated. The only guidance-like content is the scoping note about the domain, which is a behavioral clarification rather than usage routing.

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