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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further and says exactly what is destroyed: the session ends for good, every tool stops working until reconnect, and reconnect is a few clicks in the assistant's own settings. It also discloses that the reply itself carries the reconnect steps, which must be read back verbatim.

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?

The usage condition is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence adds routing, irreversibility, or reply-handling information. Dense and slightly long for a one-parameter tool, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by explaining that the reply carries reconnect steps and must be relayed verbatim. For a destructive terminal operation, the agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle the result.

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 param already documents both 'must be true' and the confirmation precondition, so the description mostly restates it. It adds only mild reinforcement of the confirmation gate rather than new syntax or semantics; 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 specific verb+resource (sign this connection out of Connections) and immediately distinguishes it from the nearest sibling by naming connections_switch_workspace as the wrong tool for a mere workspace change. An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Explicit trigger (member is signed in as the WRONG account and wants to sign out/switch), explicit exclusion (if they only want a different WORKSPACE, use connections_switch_workspace instead), and an explicit precondition on confirm. When/when-not/alternative are all present.

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