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

Although annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds critical behavioral nuance: it deletes Bowmark's record and cookies, does NOT sign the account out on the site, and cannot be undone. This meaningfully goes beyond the annotation flags.

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 well-organized and appropriately sized for a destructive operation. It front-loads the core action, then covers consequences, irreversibility, and usage boundaries — every sentence carries distinct value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what happens, what does not happen, irreversibility, when to call it, and when not to. Combined with strong annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter `id` is already documented as 'The connection `id` from `list_connections`'. The description repeats that provenance without adding new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('forget') and resource ('saved login'), and anchors the operation to the id returned by `list_connections`. It also disambiguates from the sibling `logout_connection` by explaining what the operation is not.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Only call this when the user asked to remove a saved login'), names the exact alternative for signing out (`logout_connection`), and prohibits use on stale connections where re-authentication is the correct path.

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