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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds substantial context: the credential is deleted, Google tokens are separately revoked, the call is idempotent ('disconnecting something that was never connected changes nothing'), it is free, and it degrades measurement/distribution. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations can't convey.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, revocation, idempotency, consequence + caution + cost), with the core action front-loaded and no 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?

For a single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, idempotent behavior, blast radius, cost, and the human-confirmation requirement.

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% and the provider parameter even lists its enum-like values (ga4, gsc, gbp, linkedin, reddit). The description only reframes provider as 'growth data source or distribution channel', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('disconnect a growth data source or distribution channel') and elaborates exactly what is destroyed (the stored credential, plus Google-side revocation). It is unambiguous against its read-only siblings, though it never names list_connections or start_connection explicitly to route the agent.

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 supplies real usage context: the operation narrows what the engine can measure and distribute, and instructs the agent to confirm with the founder first. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the consequence framing plus the confirmation prerequisite is strong guidance.

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