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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful nuance that this yields a link plus user-facing instructions — implying a manual, out-of-band revocation rather than an in-product mutation — which is genuinely useful context an agent cannot read off annotations. It stops short of saying whether the returned link expires, is one-time, or requires an authenticated session.

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?

A single short phrase, front-loaded with the two things the tool returns (link, steps). It is not wasteful, but the missing verb and clipping make it read as a note rather than a definition.

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 no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing — and routing is the piece it lacks. An agent cannot tell from this text alone when revocation guidance is the right call versus the setup_* Facebook connect tools that handle the inverse flow.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no input is needed to retrieve the guide.

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 names the resource (a Facebook link) and the deliverable (steps for the user to remove AdsAgent's access), which reads as a guidance/lookup tool rather than an action. However, the phrasing is a sentence fragment with no verb, and it never states whether the tool performs the disconnect or merely returns instructions — an agent could plausibly expect either. It is distinguishable from connections_list/connections_create_intent only by inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus setup_begin_facebook_connect, setup_check_facebook_connect, connections_list, or connections_check_intent, all of which sit in the same connection domain. No prerequisites, no explicit exclusions, no named alternative.

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