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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description explicitly scopes the destructive behavior: 'This deletes ONLY ThinAir's saved connection record (name, encrypted DSN) — your actual database is never touched, nothing is dropped or altered on it.' This tells the agent exactly what is affected and reassures that external systems are safe, which is highly valuable for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is two compact sentences plus a practical usage tip, with the core action front-loaded and every sentence contributing information. It explains scope, non-destructiveness, and how to get the correct input without any fluff.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations (including idempotentHint and destructiveHint), and a provided output schema, the description covers all an agent needs to call it correctly: what it does, what it does not do, and how to determine the correct input. No critical gaps 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?

The input schema already defines the 'name' parameter with full coverage (100%) and a description: 'Exact name of the connection to remove, as shown by list_connections.' The tool description repeats the need for the exact name but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it correctly sits at the baseline of 3.

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 begins with 'Remove a stored database connection from ThinAir Data by name,' which is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like add_connection, list_connections, and even instructs to use list_connections for uncertain names, so there is no ambiguity.

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 gives a concrete usage instruction: 'Call list_connections first if you're unsure of the exact name,' which tells the agent when to consult a sibling tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but since removing a connection is a distinct action with no close alternative, this is a clear and practical guideline.

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