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

Annotations only say readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds the crucial two-step semantics that annotations cannot express — it deletes nothing itself, a human must confirm on the dashboard, the returned `confirmUrl` is the only path to completion, and no call can finish it programmatically. It also flags irreversibility, which reconciles the surprising destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the most decision-relevant fact ("This does not delete anything by itself") before anything else, and every following sentence carries a distinct load: the confirmation flow, the return value, the trigger condition, and two exclusion rules. No filler.

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 one-parameter mutation-initiation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the return value (`confirmUrl`), what the user must do with it, the irreversibility, and the routing rules against siblings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 100% and the schema already documents that `id` is the connection id from `list_connections`, so the description largely restates it. The single-parameter baseline of 3 is appropriate; no format or edge-case guidance is added beyond the source tool.

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 precise verb and resource ("Start deleting a saved login") plus the identifier source, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings `list_connections` (source of the id) and `logout_connection` (the sign-out alternative). An agent can tell exactly what this does and does not do without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ("Only call this when the user asked to remove a saved login"), names the alternative for a different intent (`logout_connection` for signing out), and states a negative case ("Never call it to 'fix' a connection that is merely stale") with the reasoning that `needs_reauth`/`expired` self-heal via sign-in.

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