fabric_connector_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavior: the operation is gated (confirm=true and UNIFI_ENABLE_CONNECTOR_WRITE), irreversible with no undo, and performs a read-before-and-after to verify deletion via a 4xx response. These details provide far more than the annotations could have, giving the agent a clear safety profile.

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 dense and efficient, front-loading the most critical facts (MUTATION, GATED, IRREVERSIBLE) in the first line. Every sentence adds essential value: gating conditions, the read-after behavior, the no-undo warning, and a pointer to shared semantics. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and a complex destructive operation, the description covers all necessary context: safety gating, irreversibility, read-after verification, and parameter semantics via reference. The presence of an output schema handles return values, so the description is complete for making an informed call.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the confirm parameter's gating role and noting body is optional. It also refers to fabric_connector_get for host/path/site/scope semantics, adding meaning to those parameters. While not deeply describing each parameter, it provides enough direction to understand their purpose.

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 'Relay a DELETE through the Fabric connector' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly marks it as MUTATION. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the GET twin and referencing fabric_connector_get semantics, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for use: it is a destructive, gated operation requiring explicit confirmation and an environment flag. While it does not explicitly say 'use this when you want to delete', the DELETE verb and references to the GET twin strongly imply when it applies. It lacks an explicit exclusion list, so a 4 is appropriate.

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