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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether credentials/tokens are revoked, whether the action is recoverable, or what scope (personal vs team) it affects.

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 very short sentences with the action front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than exemplary conciseness.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety information, and the schema covers all three parameters. However, the description says nothing about side effects (credential removal, team-scope resolution via billing), leaving meaningful gaps for a disconnect operation.

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 slug, type, and billing are already fully documented in the schema. 'Pass slug' merely echoes the required parameter and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Disconnect a connector') that cleanly separates it from sibling connector_add and connector_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings or the scope of what gets disconnected, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The only guidance is 'Pass slug' — a restatement of the required parameter. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative (e.g. connector_permissions, credential_delete) mentioned, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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