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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by stating the operation is not reversible from here and specifying the recovery path (reconnect from scratch in the Rebbel dashboard). This is exactly the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tightly packed sentences with the irreversibility warning front-loaded second, no filler. Every clause carries actionable 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?

For a 2-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description supplies the missing consequence and recovery context. No output schema is needed, and nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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 both brandId and connectionId are already fully documented, including the warning not to remove healthy connections. The description adds no new parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (removes/disconnect) plus resource (channel connection), and it scopes the operation to broken or wrong connections with concrete examples (health="error"/"needs_reauth"). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from list_connections by explaining it removes clutter from that list.

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?

States the trigger condition clearly (only remove a connection that is actually broken/wrong, with health-state examples) and warns of the downstream effect (can't be used to publish/schedule). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use path, but the usage context is unmistakable.

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