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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an ownership restriction and one side effect ('Routines referencing it keep their other connectors'), which are non-obvious traits. However, it omits irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and what happens to the connector's data — significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-obvious side effect placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 delete with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the ownership gate, and the effect on dependent routines. Only the destructive/irreversible nature is left unstated, which is a modest gap.

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% — the single connector_id parameter is fully documented as a UUID in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond reaffirming that the target must be one the caller owns.

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+resource ('Delete a connector') and adds a scope qualifier ('you own'), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_routine, delete_skill, etc.) beyond the resource noun itself.

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?

It implies the precondition for use ('a connector you own'), which is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternative tools (e.g., disconnect_integration), and no note about when deletion is inappropriate. Usage is only implied.

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