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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds information they cannot convey: the blast radius (every agent using the connection loses it) and a mandatory confirmation step. It stops short of describing failure modes, e.g. whether deletion is blocked while agents still reference it or whether sign-out 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 sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope called out first and the safety instruction second. Nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, this supplies exactly what an agent still needs: the fan-out consequence and the user-confirmation requirement. No return-value detail is needed.

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 required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the burden falls on the description, which never explains what connectionId is or where to obtain it. The reference to get_mcp_connection is the closest hint but is framed around discovering affected agents, not the identifier's format or source.

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 concrete verb-plus-resource action ("sign out of an MCP server and remove it") and adds a scope qualifier ("EVERY agent that uses it") that separates it from a per-agent removal. It never names detach_mcp_connection directly, so the contrast with that sibling is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear operating condition (user must confirm, and the agent should announce which agents lose access) plus a discovery pointer via get_mcp_connection. It does not state the negative case — i.e. use detach_mcp_connection instead when only one agent should lose the connection.

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