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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the last good sample is retained and remains available, and an in-flight callback or collection cannot reconnect the site. That clarifies the blast radius and the irreversibility semantics rather than restating the annotations.

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 destructive action is front-loaded, but 'Keep the last good sample. The last good sample stays available.' is a redundant restatement of the same fact, wasting a sentence in a four-sentence description.

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 covers effect (credential removal, collection stops), data retention, and the fact that in-flight work cannot re-establish the connection. Prerequisites and post-state recovery path are the only real omissions.

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 the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as coming from list_sites or add_site, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource ('Remove the local Google credential and stop collection') and is unambiguously the inverse of connect_search_console / sync_search_console among siblings. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the verb (disconnect a site that is currently connected), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite such as 'site must currently be connected', and no named alternative for re-enabling collection (connect_search_console).

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