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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the baseline is lower; the description adds genuine consequence detail beyond them — that changes invalidate previous checks and disable capabilities, and that credentials are not validated. It doesn't say what exactly is destroyed on disconnect, which keeps it from 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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the dual-mode behavior is stated first. The terseness borders on under-specification rather than excess, so it isn't wasteful.

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, 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences and non-goals but leaves key mechanics unanswered — what happens to configuration/credentialNames when disconnect is true, and whether the required fields still apply. Adequate but with clear gaps given the complexity.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters (9 required, including a nested configuration object), so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It gives meaning only to expectedRevision and the optional disconnect flag; region, accountId, credentialNames, configuration, and idempotency_key are left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Save provider account metadata') and covers both modes of the call, including the disconnect path. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like summer_providers_connections_list, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

It gives a real usage constraint ('at an expected revision') and an explicit exclusion ('does not assert a working Bask API or verify credentials'), which routes verification work to the capability-check tools. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer disconnect vs. save, but the context is otherwise clear.

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