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 behavioral burden. Disclosing the confirm=true safety gate is genuinely useful, but for a destructive operation it says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on anything referencing the connector, required scopes, or failure modes. An output schema exists, but that does not cover the destructive semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the destructive action front-loaded before the precondition. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than wasteful.

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, unannotated tool with 0% schema coverage and two undocumented identifiers, the description is too thin. Output schema coverage means return values needn't be explained, but the safety and scoping context an agent needs before deleting a connector is missing.

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% – all three parameters have only titles. The description adds meaning for exactly one parameter (confirm must be true), while board_id and connector_id remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a connector'. This clearly separates it from get_connector, create_connector and update_connector in the sibling list, though it never explicitly names those alternatives or the scope of what a connector is.

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 only guidance is the mechanical precondition 'Requires confirm=true'. There is no statement of when to delete versus update or re-create, no warning about what happens to dependent content, and no note on permissions or irreversibility.

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