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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the action is not reversible from here and the account must be reconnected from scratch in the Rebbel dashboard. That recovery path and the side effect on listing/publishing go beyond the boolean hints, though it stops short of covering auth or permission requirements.

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 sentences, zero waste. The high-value irreversibility warning is front-loaded right after the purpose statement rather than buried.

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 two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger conditions, side effects, and the non-reversibility/recovery path. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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% and both parameters already document their source (list_brands, list_connections) plus the irreversibility warning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Removes) and resource (channel connection) with precise scope: broken or wrong connections such as health="error"/"needs_reauth". It explicitly ties itself to the sibling list_connections, so an agent can separate it from list_connections and publish/schedule tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition (only remove one that's actually broken/wrong, e.g. error/needs_reauth health) and the consequence that motivates it (stops cluttering list_connections, prevents accidental publishing/scheduling). It does not name a true alternative tool, but no sibling performs disconnection, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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