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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'destructive action' and 'After authorization'. It adds context by noting a prerequisite (requires a provider key from the connection list), which is valuable for the agent to prepare the call. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first gives the trigger condition, the second states the action and prerequisite. The most critical information (when to use) is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers when, what, and a key prerequisite. It does not describe the outcome or response format, but that is not essential for a tool that simply revokes a connection. The 'from the connection list' hint also guides the agent to retrieve the value from the appropriate sibling tool.

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 100% and the schema already describes the provider values and meaning. The description adds a note about 'a provider key from the connection list,' which hints at the source of the value, but this is marginal over the schema. Baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource: revoking a provider connection, and explicitly names the supported providers (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list-provider-connections by describing an action (revoke) rather than a query.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when the user explicitly asks to disconnect...' and lists the specific providers. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear and leaves no ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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