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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral consequences: access is immediately lost for subsequent reads and writes, and the operation is idempotent while not deleting the queue or cases. This enriches the idempotentHint and clarifies non-destructiveness.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action first and each sentence adding a distinct point: the target, the access consequence, and the safety semantics. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral needs: what is disconnected, the immediate effect, and what is not deleted. It is slightly incomplete because it does not state reconnect behavior or clarify the source/queue relationship, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is only 50%: artifact_id has a schema description but queue_id does not, and the tool description does not explain how 'source' maps to queue_id or how artifact_id should be obtained. The description therefore adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Disconnect a source from a team-created dashboard.' This clearly states the action and target. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as detachPulseDashboardConnection or the inverse connectPulseDataSource, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'team-created dashboard' implies the intended context and the sentence about subsequent reads/writes losing access warns about consequences. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as detachPulseDashboardConnection.

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