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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new consequence detail — that the key behind the link is revoked and that Slack removal only affects a legacy personal link — which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. Permissions and rate limits remain unstated.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action and the key-revocation consequence come first, and the Slack caveat follows as a scoping qualification — properly front-loaded.

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 4-parameter destructive tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect, and the main edge case. It does not say what happens to the linked conversation history or whether other accounts are affected, which is a minor remaining 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (channel enum, workspace, phone_e164, tg_user_id) is already documented, including when-multiple-are-linked hints and a channel_status reference. The description adds no format, ordering, or disambiguation detail beyond the schema, 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 precise verb+resource: 'Remove a Telegram, Slack or WhatsApp link from the person's account and revoke the key behind it.' It narrows scope to personal links and the channel set, so an agent can distinguish it from link_channel and from team-level management without reading any 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?

'A Slack unlink only removes a legacy personal link; a team's workspace is managed in Settings → Team' is an explicit when-not boundary with a named alternative. It lacks any pointer to sibling tools for the reverse or inspection case, so it is clear context plus one exclusion rather than full routing guidance.

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