Delete KB Sync Connector

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds 'Permanently delete', reinforcing irreversibility, which is useful context beyond the generic annotation. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as what happens to associated sync configurations, whether permissions are required, or error behavior if the connector does not exist. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the critical information ('Permanently delete') and immediately states the target resource and method. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

This is a simple deletion tool with a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the destructive and idempotent nature. The description fully explains what the tool does and how to invoke it. While it lacks details about preconditions or cascade effects, those are not critical for a basic delete operation, and the information provided is sufficient for correct use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for connector_id ('The connector id to delete'). The description also mentions 'by id', but this adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents the single parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Permanently delete') and the specific resource ('KB Sync connector') with a precise identifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_kbsync_connector_get, lyzr_kbsync_connector_update, and lyzr_kbsync_connector_list, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any usage conditions. The verb 'delete' and the reference to 'by id' imply its use, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, such as suggesting listing first to confirm the ID. This is reasonable for a simple delete tool but lacks clear usage direction.

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