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 still adds non-annotation context: the deletion is local only ('Nothing changes in the system itself') and carries no cost ('Free'). It does not say whether association data such as rules from connect_set_rules survives, which is the main remaining unknown.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action, then the boundary, then the cost. No filler whatsoever; each clause carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is close to complete: it explains local-only effect and cost. The gap is what happens to dependent configuration or prior synced data when the connection is forgotten, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The connection's name.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about identifier format or how to discover valid names (connect_list), which is acceptable at baseline given full schema coverage.

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: 'Forget a connected system and its credential.' This clearly separates it from connect_add/connect_list/connect_call, though it never names a sibling explicitly. The scope of removal (credential only, not the external system) is unambiguous.

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?

'Nothing changes in the system itself' implicitly warns that this is a local unbind, not a revocation of access in the remote system, which helps the agent choose correctly if it actually wants to cut off access. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. connect_set_rules) – the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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