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

The description states that an existing 1st-degree connection is removed, which tells the agent what is destroyed. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds only marginal value beyond what annotations provide; it does not mention permanence, notifications, or other side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the core action and target are presented immediately.

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 simple destructive action, the description combined with the full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations provides enough information for correct invocation. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from invitation-related sibling tools, but this is minor given the clarity of 'existing 1st-degree connection.'

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 are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a precise resource ('existing 1st-degree connection'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like connect, withdraw_invitation, or decline_invitation. Even without additional wording, an agent can tell what action is being performed.

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?

The phrase 'existing 1st-degree connection' implies the tool is for current connections, not pending invitations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like withdraw_invitation. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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