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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly. It states the operation is a WRITE, immediate, irreversible, cascades to mmp_apps, cohort_configs, and cached cohort rows, and warns that no mutation receipt is advertised. This goes well beyond basic schema information.

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?

The description is information-dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, behavioral warnings, safety instructions, re-add path, and parameter example. The critical destructive nature is front-loaded, and the REQUIRED/EXAMPLE formatting makes the parameter contract unambiguous.

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, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the input source, the irreversible consequences, the retry rule, and the lack of a receipt, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and avoid harmful repetition.

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 fully compensate. It does: it names connection_id as required, specifies its type as string UUID, tells the agent where to obtain it (from mmp_get_state), and provides a concrete JSON example. This is complete semantic coverage for the single parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one existing MMP connection by connection_id.' It also distinguishes the operation from related siblings by explicitly noting that re-adding requires mmp_connect, so the agent can tell this tool apart from mmp_refresh_connection and mmp_get_state.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and safety guidance: it says to show the exact target, obtain explicit user confirmation, call once, and never retry an uncertain outcome. It also names the alternative for reverting the action (call mmp_connect with the AppsFlyer token again), which makes the usage boundary clear.

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