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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the scope of destruction: revocation is immediate yet accounts already connected remain connected. That residual-state detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether revocation is reversible.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the immediate effect is front-loaded and the caveat about existing connections follows. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential effect and side-effect model. Minor gaps remain around permissions and post-revocation link state, but no output schema is needed here.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema with provenance hints ('id from list_connect_links', 'Workspace id from list_workspaces'). The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Stops a connect link') and the exact effect ('nobody can connect accounts through it any more'). The resource is unambiguous against siblings like create_connect_link and list_connect_links, though it never names 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?

Usage is implied by the effect statement — you revoke a link you want dead — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or role), and no mention of alternatives such as deleting versus revoking.

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