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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds behavior an agent cannot infer: the old token is invalidated as a side effect, the new token is returned exactly once and cannot be re-read, and the caller must be a workspace owner. Those three facts materially change how the tool should be called and how the result must be handled.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its destructive consequence, then the one-time-display warning, then the scope exclusion and the permission gate. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter mutation tool this covers the important ground: authorization, irreversibility, and the one-shot nature of the returned token. It does not say what the response payload looks like (presumably the token field) nor whether dependent services need a redeploy, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for connection_id, making this the baseline case.

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 compound action: issue a new token AND revoke the old one, which cleanly separates it from revoke_connection (revoke only) and create_connection (new connection). The parenthetical '(e.g. after a leak)' anchors the intent instantly.

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 a concrete when-to-use trigger ('after a leak') and an explicit when-not ('Not for the connection this chat uses'), which is a real exclusion an agent could otherwise get wrong. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like revoke_connection, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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