Disconnect an authorized project

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds important context by clarifying that only authorization is removed, not files. This goes beyond the annotations and prevents misinterpreting the destructiveness as file loss.

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?

A single, word-efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a critical caveat. No waste.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main effect and clarifies non-destructiveness to files. It omits potential error cases or how to find projectId, but these are minor for this simplicity level.

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 should explain the projectId parameter. It does not. The tool name and schema property name imply it identifies a project, but no format, source, or how to obtain it is provided. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 states a specific action ('Remove') on a specific resource ('one project from the MCP authorization list') and explicitly clarifies it does not delete project files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect_project (which adds) and file-deletion tools.

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 implies usage by stating what it does and what it avoids (file deletion), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like connect_project or give conditions for when to use it. The differentiation is implicit, not explicit.

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