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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, yet the description adds two things they cannot: the owner-approval gate that prevents a key from widening its own reach, and per-call cost with failure not being charged. It still doesn't say whether the replacement takes effect immediately once approved or whether existing calls are revoked at once.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then approval behavior, then price – a sensible order in three short sentences. The bare "$0.001." immediately followed by "Costs $0.001 per call; nothing if it fails" is redundant and slightly noisy.

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?

With no output schema and only two fully documented parameters, the description covers the important non-schema concerns: replacement scope, approval workflow, and billing on failure. Only the timing of enforcement and any pending-approval return state are unaddressed.

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% and the schema already explains the allow-array pattern syntax and the connection name. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Replace the calls a connection may make" gives a specific verb (replace) and resource (allowed call list), and the full-replacement wording separates it from connect_add/connect_remove. It never names those siblings, so an agent still has to infer that connect_preview is the non-mutating counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied by the replacement semantics and the approval note, but nothing states when to use this instead of connect_preview, connect_add, or connect_remove. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing connection) are spelled out.

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