delete-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 mentions that deletion returns a success message, which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related resources, or any rate limits/error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds behavioral context about the return value. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain more about the deletion's impact (e.g., permanence, side effects) and error handling, especially since siblings include similar tools like 'delete-topics' that might have different behaviors.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'connectorName' is required (which is already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('an existing connector'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-connector' and 'read-connector' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the connector must exist), when not to use it, or how it differs from other deletion tools like 'delete-topics' or 'delete-flink-statements' in the sibling list.

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