delete_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation but provides no information about consequences (e.g., whether this is irreversible, whether it affects related syncs or models, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure). For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is efficiently formatted. No unnecessary words or redundant information is present.

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 operation with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks critical behavioral context about consequences, permissions, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more for a deletion 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?

The description provides the parameter 'id' with semantic context ('The connection ID to delete'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. While it doesn't specify format or constraints, it clearly explains what the parameter represents. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a connection from Polytomic'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_bulk_sync or delete_model, but the resource specificity provides adequate distinction.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_connection or list_connections, nor about prerequisites (e.g., whether the connection must be inactive). The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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