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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real substance: revocation semantics versus non-withdrawal of imported knowledge, and optimistic concurrency where stale revisions fail so newer selections are protected. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the destructive-scope caveat immediately following. Slightly compressed phrasing ('lost-response outcomes', 'both revisions') costs a little clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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, revision-guarded mutation with an output schema, the description covers effect scope, concurrency behavior, and the source of the revision values. Remaining minor gaps are confirimation/prerequisite details and the precise meaning of 'lost-response outcomes'.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: 'both revisions' clarifies that the two expected_*_revision fields must come from provider_resources_read, and '[] revokes' defines an empty repository_ids as a documented, meaningful value. That is genuine semantic value the schema does not carry.

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 ('Assigns authorized repositories'), defines the revocation case ('[] revokes Agent selection'), and explicitly separates itself from provider_disconnect and source_withdraw. An agent can tell exactly which action this performs 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?

Gives clear usage context and negative guidance ('does not disconnect GitHub or withdraw imported knowledge'), and routes lost-response cases to provider_resources_read. It lacks an explicit positive 'use when' trigger relative to the other *_resources_select siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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