delete_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent DAGs). This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action and required parameter. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like behavioral traits, parameter specifics, and expected outcomes, which are essential for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which adds meaning to the 'conn_id' parameter by indicating it's an identifier, but doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints. This provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a connection by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like delete_dag, delete_dag_run, or delete_variable, which would require mentioning what type of connection is being deleted or its context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the connection ID from get_connection or list_connections), when not to use it, or how it differs from update_connection or clear_dag_run for related operations.

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