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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description only adds 'immediately' and 'this person's', without explaining consequences such as whether the agent loses access instantly, whether revocation is reversible, or what happens to the connection's credentials.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title and could have used its brevity to include a crucial detail such as irreversibility.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and low parameter coverage. The description lacks key facts an agent needs, such as what happens after revocation, whether it can be undone, and what the 'connection' parameter identifies.

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 only 33%. The description does not explain what the 'connection' UUID represents, when to supply 'reason', or how 'idempotency_key' should be used. The schema itself only describes idempotency_key, leaving the description with a gap it does not fill.

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 (revoke) and resource (agent connection), so the action is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as summer_account_connections_list or clarify which 'person' scope is involved.

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?

Offers no guidance on when to revoke a connection versus viewing it, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives are available. The word 'immediately' hints at urgency but does not define usage conditions.

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