delete_connect

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description simply repeats the destructive nature with the word 'Delete'. It adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or prerequisites. No contradiction exists, but the description provides no value beyond the 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 a single, precise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, and every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity delete operation with complete schema documentation and strong destructive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It includes the essential action and resource, and the schema provides required parameter details. Slightly more context about deletion effects could push it higher, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the burden, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('connect definition'). It is distinct enough from sibling delete tools like delete_topic and delete_schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related connect tools such as post_connect or get_connects.

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 tool versus alternatives such as post_connect, get_connect_by_name, or get_connect_resume. The usage context is only implied by the name and description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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