remove_connector

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to restate destructiveness. It adds the permission constraint ('Requires allow_connectors') and clarifies the scope is 'external' connectors. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, impact on active connections, or any 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 extremely concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It lacks details about effects or reversibility, but the annotations provide destructive context, and the absence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. Overall, it is adequately complete for its simplicity.

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 schema has only one parameter, 'name', with no description. The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but the tool name and description make it clear that 'name' refers to the connector to remove. Thus, the description adds contextual meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more explicit.

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 ('Remove') and the object ('an external MCP connector'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_connector, list_connectors, and refresh_connectors. The verb+resource structure leaves no ambiguity.

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 implies the tool should be used when removing an external MCP connector, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The permission requirement ('Requires allow_connectors') is a useful but minimal guideline.

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