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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral content beyond them: it refuses entries still referenced by any workflow, does not touch external account connections, and requires an explicit user request. It still doesn't say whether the removal is permanent or how a refusal is surfaced, so not a full 5.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the usage gate front-loaded ahead of the behavioral caveats. Every clause carries a distinct constraint.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema (so returns need no explanation) and destructiveHint annotations, the description covers preconditions, refusal behavior, and scope limits. The main omission is whether successful removal is reversible.

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 coverage is 50%: confirmName is documented in the schema while connectorId carries only a UUID format/pattern. The description's 'exact named catalog entry' echoes the confirmName confirmation intent and implies the name must currently exist, which compensates only partially for the undocumented identifier.

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 and resource ('remove the exact named catalog entry') and bounds the scope ('does not disconnect external accounts'), which separates it from remove_resource and from disconnecting accounts. It never names a sibling tool, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Use this only after the user clearly asks to remove the exact named catalog entry' gives an explicit precondition, and the refusal rule adds a concrete use/abort condition. No alternatives are named (e.g., when to prefer disabling or removing a resource instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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