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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding the *consequence*: it can revoke provider access and affects future publishing, which is real context beyond the flags. The retry instruction reinforces idempotency behavior, though it largely restates the idempotencyKey schema note and says nothing about what happens to already-scheduled posts.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the destructive consequence is front-loaded, followed by the identification prerequisite and retry rule. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the risk profile, the prerequisite lookup, and safe retry semantics. It stops short of describing downstream effects on existing scheduled/approved posts, which would fully close the loop for an irreversible operation.

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%, so all three parameters (including the strict 24-hex pattern and the idempotencyKey constraints) are already documented. The description's only addition is the workflow hint to source the channel from company_list_channels, so the 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 and resource ("Disconnect a selected social channel from the Workspace") and clearly distinguishes the target object (a channel/connection) from the connection-link siblings by pointing to company_list_channels for identification. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 prerequisite — confirm the exact channel via company_list_channels before calling — which routes the agent through the right preparatory tool. It does not explicitly name what to do instead when a channel should merely be re-linked rather than disconnected, so exclusions are only implied.

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