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

Annotations provide rich behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and while it doesn't add much beyond the obvious 'delete' action, it implicitly confirms the destructive nature. However, it misses opportunities to clarify what 'delete' entails (e.g., irreversible removal, effects on dependencies) 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 extremely concise with just four words ('Delete a Connector'), front-loading the core action and resource. There's zero wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate given the annotations cover key behavioral aspects (destructive, idempotent). However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), side effects, or error handling, which could be important for safe invocation. The completeness is borderline, relying heavily on annotations to fill gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'connectorName' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a Connector'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'businessobject-delete' or 'connector-call-delete', which would require specifying what type of connector is being deleted or how it differs from other deletable resources.

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. With multiple deletion tools available (e.g., 'businessobject-delete', 'connector-call-delete', 'sap-system-delete'), there's no indication of what makes a 'Connector' distinct or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations like 'connector-update'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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