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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating the deletion action, which aligns with the destructive hint, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like confirmation prompts, error handling, or system impacts beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive nature (annotations cover this), two fully documented parameters, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain return values or error cases, which could be helpful for a deletion tool, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('connectorName' and 'callName'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 target resource ('a Connector call'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'connector-delete' or 'businessobject-delete', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 'connector-delete' or 'connector-call-update', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely 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.