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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is naming exactly what is destroyed: the link itself and the stored OAuth grants, which tells the agent re-authorization will be needed afterwards. It stops short of stating irreversibility, confirmation requirements, or permission prerequisites.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the 'Connection Hub only' scoping constraint is front-loaded before the action. Nothing is repeated from 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers what the operation destroys and where it is valid. Missing pieces are how to obtain the linked_connection_id and what happens if the connection is not currently linked.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden; it only says 'for that connection' without giving format, source (where to get a linked_connection_id), or whether an account identifier is accepted. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, so this is minimally adequate rather than harmful.

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 specific verbs (revoke, delete) against a specific resource (a linked connection and its stored OAuth grants), and the 'Connection Hub only' qualifier scopes it. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby ops_remove_integration, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Connection Hub only' implies the domain in which this applies, giving partial routing guidance. There is no explicit when-not, no prerequisites (e.g. must be linked first), and no named alternative such as ops_remove_integration for non-Connection-Hub cases.

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