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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable context: it deletes connection data, makes bank data unavailable, and returns a re-connect URL. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying what gets destroyed and the return 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 description is concise, using two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and then efficiently conveys consequences and return value.

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?

Although the tool appears simple, the description is incomplete due to the undefined 'item' parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. The return value is partially described (add_connection_url) but not the full response structure, and there is no guidance on prerequisites or side effects beyond what annotations already convey.

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 schema defines a single 'item' string parameter with no description, and the tool description does not clarify what 'item' refers to (e.g., bank ID, connection ID). With 0% schema coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent without essential invocation information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Revokes' and clearly identifies the resource 'Open Finance consent' for a specific bank, making it distinct from sibling tools like connect and authenticate. It also states the destructive consequence explicitly.

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 description implies its use for disconnecting a bank but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections are provided, though the mention of add_connection_url hints at reconnection.

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