Delete SSH Connection

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it is a 'soft-delete' (not permanent), and it describes a 'Guarded policy' requiring confirmation bound to workspace, connection, and revision, plus read-only rejection. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a better sense of side effects.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The policy details in the second sentence are relevant but could be streamlined. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is appropriately sized for a destructive operation.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no parameter semantics, the description is insufficient. It hints at confirmation requirements but does not explain the confirmation flow, what confirmation_text should be, or whether workspaceId is always required. Even though an output schema exists, an agent cannot confidently call this tool without guessing parameter values.

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 must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'confirmation' and 'workspace' without explaining individual parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of 'confirm' (boolean), 'confirmation_text', or how 'revision' maps to parameters. The description fails to provide the necessary semantic detail for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('soft-deletes') and resource ('saved connection'), making the primary purpose clear. It distinguishes from generic delete tools by mentioning 'through CommandBus' and 'soft-deletes', but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like unfour.db.delete_connection or unfour.ssh.delete_task.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions policy constraints (confirmation, read-only rejection) but does not state scenarios like 'use this for SSH connections' or compare to unfour.db.delete_connection. The usage context is implied by the tool name only.

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