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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds context about the privacy semantics and the default value, but does not disclose side effects or scope of effect (e.g., existing vs. future connections).

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and valid values; the second adds a necessary caution. No filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, values, and a behavioral caution. It could mention effects on existing connections, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the single parameter's meaning and defines all three enum values ('ask' default, 'accept' auto-allow, 'block'), effectively compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Control') and resource ('whether brands may reveal the creator's identity when connecting'), and explains the three enum values. It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though none appear to overlap.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when controlling brand privacy) and adds a caution to explain the meaning before changing. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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