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

Annotations only give the generic flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: what is destroyed (connection + pending consent), what survives (existing email/service resources, encrypted tokens on the server). It does not address re-invocation/error behavior despite idempotentHint=false.

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 and generally tight, but 'Requires an account session in this organization' restates the earlier session requirement, and 'Reads site metadata only' reads as a stray, context-mismatched fragment that adds noise without value.

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 two-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, blast radius, and what is preserved — enough to call it safely. Only idempotency/failure behavior is left 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 enum for 'service' is already documented with per-connection consent semantics in the schema. The description adds nothing about organization_id or the service enum, so the schema does all the work — baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Remove this product's saved Google connection and pending consent.' The scope words ('this product's', 'pending consent') make it meaningfully distinct from the sibling commsharbor_email_google_connect, but no sibling tool is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives real invocation preconditions: an owner's account session is required and an organization key cannot authorize Google access. It never names an alternative (connect, resolve, catalog) or states when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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