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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true) by disclosing non-obvious traits: the outcome_unknown result when effects are already dispatched, the fact that those effects are irreversible, the requirement that the human reconnect locally before further work, and the no-op end condition when the operation already finished. None of this is derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: the action leads, followed by the outcome caveat and then the finished-operation branch. Information is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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 mutation tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the critical semantics: irreversibility, the unknown-outcome case, the reconnection prerequisite, and the already-finished shortcut. The only omission is routing guidance relative to the sibling status tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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%, and both parameters already carry detailed guidance in the schema (connection reuse/refresh, operationId creation vs reuse). The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline of 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 combination ('End the companion session to cancel an active operation') that no sibling tool covers, distinguishing it cleanly from get_profile, remote_connections, and remote_status. An agent can tell immediately this is the termination/cancel path.

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 context is implied ('cancel an active operation') but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no pointer to remote_status for polling or checking an operation before cancelling. The finished-operation case is described as behavior rather than as a selection rule, so guidance remains inferential.

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