delete_destination_connector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool deletes something and returns a string result, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is reversible, what permissions are needed, if there are dependencies (e.g., workflows using the connector), or potential side effects.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence is purposeful. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanation into the main sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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 operation with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be detailed), but it misses critical behavioral details like safety warnings or dependencies.

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%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter ('destination_id') and its purpose ('ID of the destination connector to delete'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a destination connector'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_source_connector' or 'delete_workflow' beyond mentioning the specific resource type.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the connector must be inactive), consequences, or relationships to sibling tools like 'delete_source_connector' or 'delete_workflow'.

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