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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether revocation is reversible, what happens to associated syncs or mirrored events, or whether reconnection is possible, all of which matter for a destructive operation in this family.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, so it does not fully earn its brevity.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema and an undocumented identifier parameter, the description should disclose side effects and where the ID comes from. It says nothing about consequences, reversibility, or downstream effects on syncs, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible call.

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 0% and the single connectionId parameter has no prose explanation anywhere. The description gives no hint that the identifier comes from list_mcp_connections or what format it takes, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb 'Revoke' is specific and the object ('connected agents') loosely identifies the MCP connection resource, so an agent can roughly infer the operation. However, it never names MCP connections explicitly, and the sibling set contains both list_mcp_connections and disconnect_account, so the boundary between this tool and those is not made clear from the description alone.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as disconnect_account or how this differs from deleting or pausing a related sync. The agent is left to infer the trigger condition entirely from the tool name.

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