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

Beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses blast radius ('Breaks Baidu push submission for every member of the organization, not just the caller') and an authorization requirement (admin role). Those are exactly the side-effect and permission facts an agent cannot derive from the structured fields.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first identifies the action, the second front-loads the two facts that affect the decision (scope of damage, role requirement). No filler or restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations already covering safety semantics, the description supplies the missing pieces: side-effect scope, permission gate, and target resource. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents projectId fully (including how to obtain it). The description only implies project scoping through the phrase 'a project's connection' and adds no format or constraint detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a project's Baidu Webmaster connection'), which cleanly separates it from the disconnect_ahrefs/disconnect_bing/disconnect_yandex/disconnect_ga4 siblings that share the same verb. No schema lookup is needed to know what it does.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite ('requires at least the admin role') and warns about org-wide impact, which tells the agent when the call is appropriate and when it may fail. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, e.g. pointing at get_baidu_connection to verify state first or set_baidu_connection to restore it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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