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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavior on top: what breaks (URL submission halts until reconnect) and the non-obvious two-call confirmation protocol via confirmToken. This is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then the confirmation mechanics. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the return behavior (first call returns a summary and token), the prerequisite for the second call, and the user-visible side effect. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 documents both `site` and `confirmToken`, including the omit-on-first-call rule. The description restates the token flow rather than adding new syntax or constraint detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Removes the Bing connection") and names the counterpart tool (connect_bing), so an agent can place it against connect_bing and disconnect_gsc without opening a schema. The scope is exact and 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?

Explains the operational consequence ("Bing URL submission stops") and the recovery path via connect_bing, plus the required two-step confirm flow. It does not explicitly say when one should avoid disconnecting, but the context an agent needs to decide is present.

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