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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: credentials are destroyed, the connection is revoked from every assigned agent, and configuration permission is required when an assignment is removed. It also discloses important non-actions — no external tool invocation and no third-party consent revocation — which are critical caveats for an agent to know before calling.

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?

Front-loads the core action and follows with scope and permission caveats in four tight sentences. Most sentences earn their place; 'without applying unrelated settings' is slightly vague but still conveys a meaningful scope limit.

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 mutation with an output schema present, the description covers destruction scope, permission prerequisites, and side-effect boundaries well. The remaining gap is that the two required parameters are never described, which the agent must resolve from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions connector_id or request_id. The purpose of request_id (likely an idempotency/dedup key given idempotentHint=false) is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer parameter behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Delete an owned connection and its saved credentials.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like create_connector/connect_connector by naming the ownership scope and what is destroyed. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies (removing an agent assignment requires configuration permission) and a scope boundary ('Does not invoke external tools or revoke consent at the third-party provider'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., revoke_authorized_app vs remove_connector), so it stops short of full when-not/alternatives routing.

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