cancel_connection_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by specifying what is destroyed (the setup URL) and what is unaffected (a completed Google/Microsoft connection), clarifying the blast radius.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second. Every clause earns its place with zero 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?

For a single-parameter cancel tool whose annotations carry the safety/idempotency profile and with no output schema to describe, the definition covers action, scope, and side effects fully. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, including a format/pattern constraint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the connection_link_id (e.g., source or lifecycle), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (cancel) and resource (pending human-calendar setup request / connection link), and explicitly contrasts with what it does not do. An agent can distinguish it from create_connection_link and get_connection_link without opening any 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?

Clearly scopes usage to *pending* setup requests and adds a useful exclusion ('does not disconnect an already completed Google or Microsoft connection'), which prevents misuse. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for disconnecting an existing connection, so it is not a full 5.

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