Retrage accesul unei conexiuni

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that existing OAuth tokens are invalidated and that reconnection requires a new approval with the key. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate and does not contradict them.

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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action, then states consequences and policy. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation details.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the effect, reconnection flow, and a usage policy. It does not mention error behavior for invalid client_id or repeated calls, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, this is not a significant gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by telling the agent that client_id should come from listeaza_conexiuni, making the required parameter actionable. It does not provide format or example values, but for a single string parameter this guidance is sufficient.

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 names a specific verb ('Anulează'), the resource (OAuth-linked application), and the concrete effect (its tokens no longer work). It also references sibling listeaza_conexiuni as the source for client_id, which distinguishes this tool from generic retrage or sterge sibling 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 states a clear prerequisite (client_id from listeaza_conexiuni) and a policy constraint ('Doar la cererea omului'), telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly discuss when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it falls just 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.