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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the admin-authorization requirement, but it does not disclose consequences of the teardown such as what happens to linked member mappings or stored settings. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this moderate add is a 3.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the admin constraint, with zero filler. Fully efficient for what it communicates.

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, irreversible-feeling mutation with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits what disconnecting actually destroys or affects and leaves both parameters unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent about to take a destructive action.

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?

Both parameters (request_id, idempotency_key) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does not, so an agent gets no semantic guidance on either param.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Disconnect Slack from this organization.' An agent can immediately tell this is the teardown counterpart to the sibling connect/link and status tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Admins only' conveys a hard prerequisite and implies the operation's scope, but there is no guidance on when to use this instead of yardstick_slack_status or slack_connect_link, and no note on when-not to disconnect. Usage is only implied.

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