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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the danger class is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed (stored credentials and Google access) and flagging the mandatory user confirmation, though it omits reversibility/re-auth consequences.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive action and its consequence front-loaded before the confirmation requirement. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 tool whose annotations and schema already carry the safety profile and parameter contract, the description covers the essentials: what is revoked, what is deleted, and the confirmation gate. Only the post-disconnect state (irreversibility, need to re-authorize) is left implicit.

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 single `confirm` parameter is already documented as const true with 'Must be true; ask the user first'. The description's 'The user must confirm' restates rather than extends the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Revokes Camberstack's Google access and deletes the stored credentials'), making the action unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, all of which are read/analysis/change-proposal tools rather than credential lifecycle tools.

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 implies when to use it via the precondition 'The user must confirm', which tells the agent a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly frame the situation (e.g., 'use when the user wants to unlink or re-authenticate their Google account') or state any when-not conditions.

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