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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: irreversibility, the refusal behavior for held connectors and the fact that the response names each holder, the agent-owned-connector case, no-op behavior when already gone, and the Valet account auth requirement.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded with the destructive warning first, and each sentence carries actionable information (irreversibility, remedy via detach_connector, idempotency, auth). Dense but no filler; slightly long but justified for a destructive tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what the answer contains in the refusal cases. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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 100% and the schema already documents both org_name (default org behavior) and connector. The description only implies the org scope implicitly and adds no syntax, format, or naming guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 destructive verb ('Destroy') on a specific resource ('organization connector') plus the side effect ('its stored credential'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from detach_connector and from destroying an agent-owned connector, so the agent can tell it apart from many siblings in the list.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: confirm with the user first because it is irreversible, and use detach_connector to free holders before destroying. It also names the preconditions (holder must be freed) and the alternative path when an agent owns the connector.

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