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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint are already declared) by disclosing concrete consequences: inbound webhook stops syncing, the endpoint returns 401, the row persists but is flagged, and an unknown or other-org id yields NOT_FOUND. It also makes clear the action cannot be undone via this tool.

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 dense but front-loaded passage: verb and resource first, then side effects, then the alternative path. No filler sentences and no repetition of annotation data as prose.

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 single-param mutation with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: id source, side effects, idempotency, tenancy scoping, failure mode, and how to reverse the action.

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 repeats the 'from list_connectors' hint, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by specifying what an invalid id means ('an unknown/other-org id is NOT_FOUND'), which adds validation and scoping semantics the schema does not carry.

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+resource ('Disconnect an intake connector by id') and immediately clarifies the mechanism: marking revoked so the webhook stops. It is clearly distinguished from list_connectors (the id source) and from any delete semantics via 'Revoke-don't-delete'.

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?

Tells the agent where the id comes from (list_connectors), that the operation is idempotent and org-scoped, and explicitly routes the reverse operation elsewhere: 'To reconnect, use the Dash'. The revoke-instead-of-delete framing acts as an implicit when-not-to-use for destructive removal.

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