delete_connection

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

The annotations already mark the operation as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining this is a soft delete that leaves the connection inactive but restorable, which goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the important soft-delete/restore behavior is stated efficiently.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering its destructive nature, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the operation does and what the consequence is, including reversibility, without needing an output schema.

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 only parameter, connection_id, is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Desativa') and resource ('conexão'), and clearly qualifies the operation as a soft delete. This distinguishes it from other delete-like tools targeting different resources such as delete_api_key or delete_mcp_server.

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 implies the tool is used to deactivate a connection and that the action is reversible, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is largely inferred from the verb and resource.

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