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

Building on the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses concrete behavior: repeated calls on already-deleted or never-existing ids return success with already_absent: true rather than an error. It also states the response shape, adding value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the alternative tool, the idempotent behavior and return shape. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with annotations already conveying idempotence and destructiveness, the description covers action, edge-case behavior, and return value. No output schema is needed because the response shape is explicitly stated.

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 0% and the description only says 'by id' and echoes connector_id in the return. It does not meaningfully explain the parameter beyond what the property name already implies, such as how to obtain the id or any format expectations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('one saved connector by id'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from update_connector. An agent can immediately tell this tool's role apart from its siblings.

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?

It explicitly names update_connector as the alternative when the goal is to change config without losing the saved definition, giving a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use signal. This is sufficient routing guidance.

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