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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it names the cascaded deletions (mmp_apps, cohort_configs, cached cohort rows), states the call is immediate and irreversible, and discloses that no mutation receipt is advertised.

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?

Front-loads the destructive warning before the confirmation protocol, and every sentence carries operational weight. Slightly dense with the confirmation and token cautions, but nothing is pure filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations explaining cascade behavior, so the description properly covers irreversibility, cascade scope, and confirmation. The only meaningful omission is any mention of the connection_context parameter in a 2-param tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents connection_id as a required UUID sourced from mmp_get_state and provides a call example, which is genuinely useful. However the optional connection_context parameter is never mentioned.

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 (Delete) and resource (one existing MMP connection) scoped by connection_id, and names the operation as the mirror of Meta MCP mmp_delete_connection. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like mmp_refresh_connection or mmp_save_cohort_config.

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?

Explicitly routes re-adding to the dashboard MMP connection page, forbids requesting an API token in chat, and prescribes a confirm-then-call-once workflow with 'never retry an uncertain outcome'. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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