delete_source_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated data (e.g., workflows or jobs), or has rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Arg and Return sections that are clear and efficient. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, as a destructive operation with no annotations and minimal behavioral disclosure, it's incomplete—lacking info on side effects, prerequisites, or error handling. It meets a baseline but has clear gaps for safe usage.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'source_id' by specifying it's 'ID of the source connector to delete', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic title 'Source Id'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could note format or sourcing details.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a source connector'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'delete_destination_connector' or 'delete_workflow', which would require specifying what makes a source connector distinct from those other deletable entities.

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 like 'delete_destination_connector' or 'delete_workflow', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the connector isn't in use) or consequences. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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