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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the blast radius is organization-wide ('Breaks Analytics data for every member of the organization, not just the caller') and it states the authorization requirement. It does not discuss reversibility or how to reconnect.

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: the action first, then the consequence and permission requirement. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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, the description covers purpose, org-wide impact and required role, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around whether the link can be restored and what happens to historical data.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId) with 100% schema coverage, including guidance to get it from list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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: 'Unlink a project's Google Analytics property.' It is unambiguous about what is being removed, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the other disconnect_* siblings (ahrefs, baidu, bing, gbp, yandex), so sibling differentiation comes only from the tool name.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the tool is clearly the inverse of set_ga4_property, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives. It does supply one useful prerequisite ('requires at least the admin role'), which lifts it above pure implication.

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