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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the concrete consequence ('the old URL will stop authorizing connections') and a confirm-intent guardrail. It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permission level.

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, effect stated before the follow-up advice — well front-loaded. The phrase 'inspect ... after uncertainty' is slightly awkward and costs a bit of clarity.

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 mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers effect, caution, and a verification path. A note on irreversibility would close the last gap.

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 workspaceId is fully documented in the schema, including the 'never a personal platformId' warning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 ('Revoke') and resource ('Workspace's client channel connection link'), plus the effect on the artifact. It is distinguishable from company_rotate_connection_link and company_disconnect_channel by wording, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 confirmation instruction and points to company_get_connection_link for verification, which is real usage guidance. It does not say when to choose revoke over rotate, regenerate, or disconnect_channel — the choices an agent will actually face.

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