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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with the tenant-scoping rule ('you can only delete your own'), but omits what happens when the id doesn't exist, whether deletion is permanent, and any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and scope constraint come first. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it could have spent one more clause on behavior without bloat.

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 the annotations carry the safety burden, and the description adds the tenant boundary. However, with no output schema and an undocumented id parameter, an agent still lacks error/not-found behavior and confirmation that the operation is irreversible, leaving 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 0% and the single 'id' parameter carries only a minLength constraint, so the description must compensate. 'By id' and the tenant-scoping note confirm the id is a connector identifier scoped to the caller, but give no format, source, or retrieval hint (e.g., from monitor_list_connectors).

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 and resource ('Delete a registered connector by id') plus the tenant-scoping constraint, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It doesn't explicitly contrast with monitor_register_connector or monitor_list_connectors, but the action is unambiguous from the name and text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus monitor_list_connectors or monitor_register_connector, nor any preconditions (e.g., must the connector be unregistered first?). The only contextual hint is the tenant-scoping note, which constrains scope but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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