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

Annotations only supply destructive/idempotent flags; the description adds substantive behavior: the connector survives in the organization, callers start erroring (intended outcome), a running agent gets a scheduled restart, and non-agent detach attempts are refused rather than silently no-op. It also discloses the auth prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account'). This is well beyond what structured fields convey.

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?

Purpose and the key distinction from destroy_connector are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph covers consequences and refusal cases in a logical order. It is on the long side and includes filler like 'which is the intended outcome,' but almost every clause carries real behavioral information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return/effect story, and it does: callers begin erroring, agents restart on schedule, and invalid target types are refused. Combined with the auth requirement and the survival of the connector record, an agent has everything needed to invoke this destructive, idempotent operation correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the three parameters is already documented with required/optional status and fallback semantics for org_name. The description contributes only an indirect hint about name matching ('a misspelled name is never read as a grant taken back') and no format, casing, or scoping detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Detach a connector from a website or agent') and immediately scopes it against the sibling that created the state ('ending the grant attach_connector made'). It further distinguishes itself from destroy_connector by noting 'The connector itself stays in the organization.' An agent can select this over its many siblings without opening any 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 a clear motivating condition ('everyone who can open the page can call every tool it exposes... detaching is the way to end that reach'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right one. It also names invalid targets (an app cannot hold a connector, so it is refused). It never explicitly names destroy_connector as the alternative when removal rather than revocation is wanted, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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