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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the action is audit-trailed and that it only disables the connection, not revokes access. It also explains why (Meow exposes no key-revoke API). This gives the agent a precise expectation of what will and won't happen, which is valuable context not derivable from the annotation alone.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and limitation immediately, and every sentence carries essential information. It is well-structured and 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?

With a complete output schema present and the schema fully documenting parameters, the description covers the action, the audit trail, the limitation, and the reason for the limitation. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and set user expectations about the outcome.

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%, so the schema already thoroughly documents both parameters (org_id and actor_id), including defaults, constraints, and rejection rules. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb (disables) and the resource (org's Meow integration), and specifies it is audit-trailed. It distinguishes itself from disconnect_mercury by name and from connect_meow by action. The limitation about key revocation adds specificity and prevents misuse.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when you need to disable Meow) and explicitly warns that it does not revoke the key, directing the user to the dashboard for full revocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough that an agent knows this is the tool for disconnecting Meow, not a generic disconnect.

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