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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the embed is turned off lazily (access lost at the next request, not immediately) and the confirm:true gate with a preview fallback. Auth/permission and reversibility details are still unstated.

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, front-loaded with the action and effect, with no wasted wording. It loses a point only because the confirm/preview sentence largely duplicates the schema's own description of the confirm parameter.

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 no output schema, the combination of annotations (destructive, not read-only) and the description (lazy revocation, confirm gate, preview behavior) gives an agent enough to call it safely. Minor gaps around permissions/scope of the affected app remain.

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 50%: confirm is fully documented in the schema, embedId is not. The description restates the confirm requirement ("Needs confirm: true; without it the result is a preview") rather than adding new meaning, and says nothing extra about embedId. Baseline 3 fits since the schema does most of the work.

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+resource ("Turns off one of a board's embeds") and even the consequence, so an agent immediately knows the action. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling revoke_access, which could plausibly be confused with revoking embed access.

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?

There is implied usage – you call this to disable an existing embed, and the confirm:true gate is explained – but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., revoke_access vs revoke_embed, or how this relates to list_embeds/create_embed). Guidance is present but left to inference.

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