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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent call; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the side effect on pending sync requests, the reversibility path (user can re-pair from the extension), the required scope, the risk rating, and current availability. Note a mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but the stated re-pair path justifies treating revocation as recoverable rather than destructive, so this is context, not conflict.

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?

The core sentence and the availability warning are well front-loaded, but the 'Efeitos: Revoga o dispositivo e cancela solicitações pendentes dele' clause restates the cancellation effect already given in sentence one. The scope/risk/effects metadata string is machine-styled boilerplate appended rather than integrated.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description does well on safety context (scope, effects, reversibility, availability), which is the highest-value information here. The remaining gap is operational: with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, an agent still does not know how to source device_id or what a successful response confirms.

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?

The single parameter device_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and does not: it never explains that device_id identifies a paired browser/extension installation, its format, or where to obtain it. 'Um navegador' at best gestures at the resource being acted on.

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: it removes the pairing of a browser and cancels its pending sync requests. That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from read-only siblings like list_extension_devices or get_connection_status. It stops short of 5 because it never names a sibling or states the inverse/recovery operation by tool name (only 're-pair via the extension').

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 the operative precondition ('Escopo: connections:manage') and, unusually, an explicit hard stop: 'INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização (escopo não concedido ou papel sem o módulo)' — a strong when-not-to-call signal. What is missing is the positive routing: it never says to resolve device_id via list_extension_devices before calling, nor what the alternative is when the device is already unpaired.

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