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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations: removal reverts to the shared configuration if one exists. It still omits whether the removal is irreversible, what happens to dependent automations, and whether auth is required.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the removal action and following it with the resulting fallback state. Efficient, though the mixed language (French description among English siblings) slightly reduces scannability.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core effect but leaves out the affected parameter, irreversibility, and the error case where no shared configuration exists. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required 'provider' parameter or its ten enum values. An agent must infer from the schema that removal is scoped to one provider's configuration, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retirer') and states the resource is the project-level configuration, plus the resulting state (fallback to the shared configuration). It is distinguishable from configure_connection/list_connections, though it never uses the word 'connection' and relies on the title to tie it to the tool name.

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: call this when you want a project to stop overriding and inherit the shared connection setup. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling tools (configure_connection, describe_connections, list_connections) and no stated prerequisites.

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