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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds value beyond them: campaign management can be interrupted, and restoring the integration needs a separate authorization flow. It also notes the return is the platform operation result or an error, though it doesn't say what the result contains.

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 action and scope, then consequences, then return. Nothing is wasted, though 'Returns the platform operation result or an error' is close to boilerplate.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, disruption risk, and reconnection path — enough to call it safely. Missing only explicit routing to alternatives such as connect_channel or the integration-status tool.

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% with a single enum-validated channel parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only refers to 'the selected advertising-channel integration' and adds no format or selection guidance 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disconnect the ... advertising-channel integration') and scopes it to the account level ('from the current Metadata account'), which distinguishes it from the campaign-scoped sibling remove_channels_from_campaign and from connect_channel.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the warning that it 'can interrupt campaign management' and the note that 'Reconnection requires a separate authorization flow' tell the agent about consequences, but no alternative (connect_channel, get_integrations_status) or precondition is named explicitly.

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