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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: the link can disconnect every app even without the agent, it contains no secret, anyone holding it can disconnect the line, and it should be kept private. These are meaningful security and scope details the annotations do not provide.

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 compact and each sentence contributes purpose, usage, or security guidance. It is slightly indirect in phrasing and does not front-load the action as directly as it could, but there is no wasted text.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It could be stronger if it clarified link lifetime or whether the link is single-use, but it gives enough context 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?

The single optional secret parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where it comes from and when it can be omitted. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at 100% schema description coverage.

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 clearly conveys that this produces a link for a human to keep, which can cut every app off the line if something goes wrong. It is distinguishable from direct line-control siblings like disconnect_line, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that alternative.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: hand the link to the human once, after setup, and explain what it is for. It also explains the condition under which the human would use it, though it does not explicitly compare when to use this versus disconnect_line.

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