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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description is consistent with these and adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the tool does not mutate state directly but creates a pending, visible request the owner can approve or dismiss. It also discloses a hard limitation (cannot change its own binding). This human-in-the-loop, async behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to know.

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 sentences with no filler; the core instruction is front-loaded, and the middle sentence efficiently packs the constraint, trigger scenario, and workflow outcome. The embedded example ('Cloudflare isn't connected...') adds concrete meaning rather than bloat.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: what to pass, where to source it, and what will happen as a result. The gaps are minor — no statement of what the tool returns (confirmation vs. error on an invalid company) and no mention of whether multiple pending requests are possible.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top by telling the agent where valid values come from (connections_list_companies) and specifying value precedence (companyId/projectId preferred over exact name), which the schema descriptions do not convey.

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 action ('Ask the human to move THIS registration to a different company'), names the resource, and emphasizes that it is a request needing owner approval rather than a direct change. The title reinforces this approval-bound workflow, distinguishing it clearly from siblings like connections_claim_company or any direct-mutation 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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition ('when you suspect you're on the wrong company... request the right one') with a concrete example (missing connected service), and explains the downstream effect (highlight on MCP Servers page for approval/dismissal). It discloses that the binding cannot be changed directly (Studio-only), implying the manual alternative, but it never explicitly names an alternative tool to prefer or states when not to use it.

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