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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses exactly what is destroyed (all stored credentials for one scope), what is preserved (the server and its revisions), and the operational consequence (calls with that scope fail until reconnected). That is the precise context an agent needs before a destructive, idempotent call.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the object of destruction, followed by the consequence and what survives. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers outcome, side effects, and reversibility condition, which is enough to call it safely. It stops short of pointing at how to reconnect the scope (set_gateway_scope_headers / set_gateway_scope_oauth_client), which would have closed the loop on recovery.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the pointer to list_gateway_servers for server_slug. The description adds only the notion that the scope is organization-held; it says nothing extra about how to identify server_slug or the scope name.

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 and resource: "Remove every credential the organization stores for one organization-held scope." It further scopes what counts as a credential (headers, or OAuth token and client registration), which clearly separates it from server-level siblings like archive_gateway_server or deactivate_gateway_server.

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 consequence clause ("Calls with the scope fail until it is connected again; the server and its revisions stay") implicitly tells the agent when this is the right tool versus deactivating/archiving the whole server. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.

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