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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required analytics scope, the needsReconsent/reconnect failure mode for older connections, and the error when no matching link exists. It does not state whether the removal is reversible or what is returned, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the reason, the sibling to consult, the error condition, and the auth caveat — each sentence carries information. The parenthetical example and the needsReconsent aside are slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.

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, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites (analytics scope, reconsent), the pre-check step, and the failure mode. It leaves the return value and the required-vs-optional status of `property` unaddressed, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: customerId is documented in the schema, but `property` has no description anywhere. The description implies the two parameters form the property/account pair being removed but adds no format or validity detail for `property`, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb+resource ('Remove the Google Ads link between a GA4 property and a customer account') and clearly distinguishes itself from create_google_ads_link and list_google_ads_links in the sibling set. An agent can identify the target object of the operation without opening the 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?

Names the alternative (list_google_ads_links) and the condition that selects it ('check what's currently linked first'), and gives a concrete motivating scenario (fixing a link to the wrong account). It also states the failure condition ('errors if no link exists for that pair'), which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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