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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by naming the two concrete effects beyond generic 'delete' – credential destruction and removal of tools from the gateway. It stops short of noting irreversibility or what happens to the remote server side, but the key blast radius is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded rather than buried. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with full annotation coverage, the description is essentially sufficient: it explains the action and its side effects. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on an unknown slug and whether re-creating the connection requires re-authentication.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single documented parameter, the schema already carries the meaning ('Which connection, by its slug'). The description adds no format, case, or lookup guidance for the slug, so 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 pair ('Disconnect ... and forget its stored credential') against a clearly named resource (a remote MCP server connection). The added consequence 'its tools disappear from this gateway' separates it from sibling connection_update or connection_tool_toggle without needing the schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the teardown path, as opposed to connection_update (config change) or connection_tool_toggle (disable individual tools), but the description never states when to pick delete versus disabling. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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