xero_delete_feed_connection

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

Annotations already convey that this is destructive and not read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: routing is restricted to a governed project/account connector authority, effect is verified by Spring, idempotency_key anchors a stable business action, and approval_ref is used when resuming a write. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the operation identity and routing constraint, and the Args list is easy to scan. The first line is slightly redundant with the tool name, but it earns value by including the platform tool path and the routing restriction.

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?

Given the annotations and existence of an output schema, the description covers the safety envelope and routing context reasonably well. What is missing is operation-specific guidance: what to place inside the arguments JSON, when approval_ref is actually required, and how project_id, project_ref, and connector_account_ref relate. For a destructive connector operation, those gaps make calling it correctly less certain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does provide one-line semantics for all seven parameters, which is helpful. However, the central 'arguments' parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no indication of what fields the delete operation needs, and the schema marks all parameters as optional, so required-value relationships such as project_id vs project_ref are left unclear.

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 clearly identifies the verb and resource through both the tool name and the line 'Xero connector operation delete_feed_connection'. This is unambiguous at selection time, though it largely restates the tool name and does not explicitly explain what a feed connection is or differentiate it from xero_create_feed_connection / xero_list_feed_connections.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the routing constraint 'exact project/account governed connector authority' and lists parameters, but does not say to list feed connections first, when a write approval is required, or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like xero_create_feed_connection and xero_list_feed_connections exist, so this gap matters.

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