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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the specific blast radius (credential deleted, syncs stopped, imported products removed), the irreversibility, and the retry-safe idempotency_key semantics. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot 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?

Three tightly packed clauses — action/effects, warning, retry semantics — with zero filler and the destructive consequence front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences and idempotency well, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is that the identity of the required `id` (which store identifier is expected) is not disambiguated against the other id-like parameters.

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 40% across 5 params, so the description should compensate more. It explains idempotency_key behavior (repeat call returns original result), which adds real meaning, but leaves the critical `id` ambiguous (store id vs brand/workspace id) and says nothing about brand_id, workspace_id, or query.

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 (disconnect) and resource (connected ecommerce store), then enumerates the concrete effects: deletes connection and credential, stops future syncs, removes imported products. Clearly distinguishable from the sibling aidelly_sync_ecommerce_store and aidelly_get/list_ecommerce_stores.

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 gives strong usage context — irreversible, and the caveat that reconnecting re-imports the catalog — which steers the agent away from using it casually. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., sync vs disconnect, or how to merely pause syncing), so the when-not-to-use path is inferred rather than stated.

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