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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact ('keep the last document'), but the rest is account/billing boilerplate unrelated to this 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 a long policy dump covering billing limits, publishing rules, and untrusted-data warnings that do not pertain to disconnecting a source. Only the first clause is front-loaded and relevant; the remaining bulk dilutes the signal.

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 destructive toggle, the core effect (stop updates, retain last document) is stated. However, the description never clarifies the connection's post-state (is it resumable via connect_base_source?) and buries the useful bit in unrelated boilerplate.

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 coverage is 100% and the single base_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter, so 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (stop), resource (source updates), and outcome (keep the last document), which is far better than the tautological title. It does not explicitly contrast with connect_base_source or unpublish_base, but the disconnect/resume framing is implied by the sibling pairing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like unpublish_base or remove_base_document. The agent must infer from the name alone that this pauses syncing rather than removing content.

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