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

The annotations already establish destructiveHint=true, while the description adds useful context by mentioning that deletion may be staged for operator approval. This goes beyond the annotations, but it leaves ambiguous what triggers staging and what the outcome of the call will be.

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 sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the important staging nuance, making it easy to scan 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool, the description gives the essential action but not enough detail about the staging behavior, the meaning of connector_key, or what the caller should expect after invocation. The destructive annotation covers the safety profile, but operational expectations remain unclear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify connector_key. It does partially by saying the operation happens 'by key', indicating that connector_key selects the connector. However, it does not explain what a key is, where to find it, or its expected format.

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 ('Delete') with a specific resource ('configured Klarefi connector') and a clear lookup method ('by key'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_connector tools simply by naming the deletion action.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to remove a configured connector. However, it does not explain when direct deletion applies versus when deletion is staged for operator approval, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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