Delete database remote connection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat these. It adds the phrasing 'permanently removes' and 'revoking', reinforcing the destructive nature but not providing much additional behavioral context beyond annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loading the action and following with critical parameter identification. Every sentence serves a purpose—first stating what it does, then how to identify the rule. No wasted words, and the structure is clean.

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?

With 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: how to identify the rule and which values to use for ip and name. However, it does not explain the 'username' parameter beyond the schema's generic description, nor does it address potential error cases or response behavior. For a simple delete operation, this is sufficient, but a bit more on username would make it fully complete.

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% with each parameter fully described. The tool description essentially repeats the schema's guidance about using exact values from list endpoints without adding new meaning. Since the schema already documents parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra insight is provided.

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 (permanently removes a remote-access rule) and the resource (database remote connection), explicitly distinguishing it from create/list siblings by saying 'removes'. It also describes the effect (revoking host's remote access), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 concrete usage instructions: the ip must be exactly as returned by the list remote connections endpoint and the name must be the full name from list databases. This helps the agent call it correctly. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus creating or listing connections, though the destructive purpose makes the choice evident.

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