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

The description discloses the permanent effect (all tools stop working until reconnect), the ease of reconnecting (few clicks), and that the reply contains reconnect steps that must be read back verbatim. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) and clarifies the impact without contradiction.

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 description is detailed but every sentence carries essential information: the use case, the consequence, the confirm condition, the alternative tool, and the reply handling. It is front-loaded with the purpose and condition. It is slightly long but not verbose.

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 single-parameter tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use it, what it does, what happens after, how to confirm, and the alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents `confirm` as a required boolean with a description, but the tool description adds the crucial condition that it must only be set after the member confirms in words. This enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's basic 'Must be true.'

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?

The description clearly states the tool ends the connection's session ('Ends this connection's Connections session for good') and explicitly ties it to the scenario of the member being signed in as the wrong account. It distinguishes itself from connections_switch_workspace, which is a sibling, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this ONLY when...' and gives the exact condition (wrong account, sign out or switch account). It also provides a clear exclusion: if only a different workspace is needed, use connections_switch_workspace instead. It further instructs when to set `confirm` (only after plain-word confirmation).

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