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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the operation is permanent, that it can be refused due to widget dependencies, that an unconfirmed call returns only a preview, and that the underlying database is untouched. These are important behavioral details that the annotations alone do not provide, and they align with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core destructive action is front-loaded, followed by the key blocking condition and the safety preview behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 confirmed delete operation, the description covers the essential context: permanence, widget-use refusal, the unconfirmed preview, and the guarantee that the database is untouched. Together with the detailed schema and annotations, the agent has enough to call the tool safely and correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents dataSourceId, confirm, and confirmName clearly. The description reinforces the confirm/preview flow but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a data source connection.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_data_source, list_data_sources, test_data_source_connection, and update_data_source. It also clarifies scope by noting the deletion removes the connection, not the underlying database.

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 gives practical usage context: deletion is refused while widgets still use the data source, and deleting requires a two-step confirm flow. This implies when to use the tool and what prerequisites must be met. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_data_source or explain when to choose them, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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