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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the downstream effect (open projects gated on this source lose their gate) and the practical irreversibility (reconnecting requires a human browser sign-in no tool can perform). This is exactly the consequence-level detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the destructive warning, then consequence, then irreversibility, then prerequisite. No filler and every sentence carries actionable information.

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 tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: consequences, reversibility, and a pre-check. Nothing material is missing.

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 parameter is documented in the schema ("Audience source id, from list_sources"). The description adds no syntactic or format detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb (Disconnect) plus resource (verified-audience source), with scope and consequence stated. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_sources/list_projects, which are referenced as the inspection tools rather than the disconnecting tool.

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?

"Check list_projects first" gives an explicit prerequisite/context for use, and the reconnect caveat warns of the commitment. It does not spell out when NOT to use it or name a true alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.

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