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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it states the revocation is permanent, the credential cannot be restored, re-consent creates a new grant while the original session remains eligible, and existing results are not deleted. These consequences are critical for a destructive operation and are not covered by the annotations alone.

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 key usage constraint is front-loaded, but the description is somewhat dense and includes a tangential final sentence ('does not retrieve statistics or answer period comparisons') that seems out of place and adds little value. Some redundancy exists with the annotations' destructive hint.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what it changes, what it does not delete, and re-consent behavior. The only notable gap is the unexplained locale parameter, but otherwise an agent has enough context 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?

There is one parameter (locale) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what locale controls. The schema provides the enum values and default, but the description does not compensate for the missing semantic guidance.

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 (disconnect/revoke) and resource (OAuth grant for this connection), and clarifies what the tool does not do (retrieve statistics or answer period comparisons). It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all perform formatting, link generation, snapshot retrieval, or normalization.

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 explicitly says to use this only when the user asks to disconnect or revoke the connection, and it notes that other connections can be revoked on the website. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative location for related actions.

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