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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by spelling out the blast radius ('Every project and form using it loses that destination') and the operational consequence that it 'Always returns a human approval link'. That approval-link behavior is not derivable from the annotations or schema and materially changes how an agent should treat the result.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action and scope, then impact, then return behavior. No filler and no 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 destructive tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: scope, impact, parameter sourcing, mutual exclusivity, and the approval-link return flow.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: connectionId is sourced from fillo_list_connections, guildId denotes a Discord server specifically, and the word 'instead' signals the two parameters are mutually exclusive alternatives. The mutual-exclusivity relationship is not encoded in the schema, so this is a genuine contribution.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Permanently remove one provider account') and states the exact scope ('from the whole workspace, or a whole Discord server by guildId'). It also names the sibling tool that supplies the identifier (fillo_list_connections), so an agent can distinguish it from related connection tools without opening a 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?

Gives clear context for both invocation modes (connectionId vs guildId 'instead') and where to get the id from, which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over adjacent tools like fillo_disconnect_integration, so the when/when-not routing is only implied.

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