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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: exactly what is destroyed (the saved token), what survives (the Slack account stays in the workspace), and that reconnection happens through Summer settings. It does not discuss retry semantics despite a non-idempotent operation with an idempotency_key parameter.

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, front-loaded with the action and its scope; nothing is redundant. The closing sentence about connecting is the weakest link but still useful orientation for an agent handling Slack connection state.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the destruction scope well but omits permission/authorization requirements and any explanation of the required parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 25% — only idempotency_key carries a schema description. The description implies the 'teammate' target but never explains company, teammate, or the required 'reason' field, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 4-parameter destructive call.

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 — disconnect a teammate's Slack account and delete its saved token — and clarifies the boundary that the Slack account itself remains in the workspace. The Slack-scoped resource naming separates it from the similarly shaped sibling summer_github_connection_disconnect without opening either 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?

The only usage-adjacent sentence concerns how to *connect* a Slack account ('Connecting needs the Slack sign-in in Summer settings'), which is background, not a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when to disconnect versus alternatives like summer_slack_identity_update, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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