panelica_git_delete_v1_git_oauth_id

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

Description explicitly warns 'destructive — permanently removes the resource', adding specificity beyond the destructiveHint annotation, and states the required scope git:delete. No contradiction with annotations; the idempotentHint is plausible for a delete operation.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action, then method/path, category, scope, and warning. Every line adds distinct information with no waste.

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 delete endpoint, the description conveys path, auth scope, category, and irreversibility. It omits response/error behavior, but no output schema exists and the destructive warning covers the key risk.

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?

The input schema covers the single id parameter at 100% with 'Path parameter: id'. The description does not add parameter-level meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('OAuth connection') with HTTP path and category, clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete endpoints for git repositories, branches, keys, pipelines, and webhooks.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as OAuth init/token/callback or other git resource deletions. The only context is the action itself, so an agent must infer when deletion is appropriate.

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