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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies the blast radius (all credentials for one scope), the consequence (calls fail until reconnected), and what is preserved (the server and its revisions). It does not mention permissions or return shape, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The removal target is front-loaded, and the survival/effect clause is appended for context without repetition.

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 no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, what remains, and the runtime consequence. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and both parameters (scope, server_slug) are already documented, including the list_gateway_servers pointer. The description goes slightly beyond by clarifying the nature of a scope (it holds headers or an OAuth token and client registration), which helps the caller understand what 'scope' identifies.

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 names a specific verb (remove credentials) and a precisely scoped resource (one organization-held scope), and enumerates exactly what is removed: headers, or OAuth token and client registration. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like deactivate_gateway_server or set_gateway_scope_headers, which act on the server or set rather than removing credentials.

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 conveys clear usage context: after this call, calls with the scope fail until it is reconnected, so an agent understands this is a disruptive, purposeful disconnect. It stops short of explicitly naming the reconnect/set alternatives (set_gateway_scope_headers, set_gateway_scope_oauth_client) or a when-not-to-use condition, so no exclusion is stated.

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