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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-open-world, non-destructive mutation; the description usefully adds that tokens are revoked while other sessions and company data survive. However, the trailing template block ('no additional confirmation is needed for this read, reversible save, ...') mislabels the operation as a 'read' and is generic boilerplate rather than tool-specific behavior.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but roughly half the text is reusable template boilerplate (Canonicality/Idempotency/Confirmation boundary, 'every prerequisite stated above') that conveys no sign-out-specific information and dilutes the core message.

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 terminal session action with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers effect scope and a prerequisite, which is close to adequate. It remains incomplete on the context parameter and its boilerplate is only loosely applicable to this tool.

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?

One nested parameter is present with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains _corply_context, its receipt/id pairing, or the dependentRequired relationship. With a non-zero parameter count at zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Sign out of this Corply MCP connection') and immediately scopes the effect: 'Revokes its access and refresh tokens; other sessions and company data remain.' No sibling tool performs sign-out, so the agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks') and a negative constraint ('Do not reconnect unless asked'). It does not name an alternative, but no competing sibling exists, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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