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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the significant cascading effect that widgets pulling from it will break, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction; the description aligns with the destructive hint.

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 filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the key consequence, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description plus annotations and schema provide sufficient information. The widget-breaking warning covers the primary risk, and the presence of an output schema means return details need not be described. Slightly more could be said about irreversibility, but destructiveHint already implies that.

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?

The input schema fully documents the id parameter with its source and purpose (from connected_datasources), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a datasource connection'), and the added consequence ('every widget pulling data from it will break') distinguishes it from non-destructive connection operations like rename_connection or test_connection. The title reinforces the purpose, making it unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unlink_datasource or rename_connection. It clearly implies deletion but lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the many connection-related sibling tools.

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