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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds genuine post-condition context: after revocation, balance payments stop working until the user reconnects and confirms. It does not say whether the credential is invalidated or whether the operation is reversible, which would complete the picture.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and appends the consequence. No padding or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with both parameters undocumented and no note on retrieving/validating the credential, the definition leaves the agent short of what it needs to invoke this mutation confidently.

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 0% and the description says nothing about connection_id or connection_credential. The regex pattern and length bounds hint at format, but there is no guidance on where the agent obtains the credential or what it authorizes — a real gap for a 2-required-param call.

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 (撤销/revoke) and resource (本Agent的账号连接/this agent's account connection). It is clearly the inverse of connect_account among the siblings, though it never names that sibling explicitly. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 clause about subsequent balance payments requiring reconnection and user confirmation implies the reason to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. connect_account to reverse it). Usage must be inferred.

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