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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the destructive scope (only this account's route, not others), giving the agent a precise understanding of what is affected. This goes beyond the bare annotation and clarifies the non-idempotent nature implicitly. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, zero fluff. The core action and the distinction from other accounts are front-loaded, and the second sentence only adds essential scope information. Every word earns its place.

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 action with clear annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: what it does, what it affects, and the key nuance about shared numbers. There are no missing prerequisites or hidden behaviors that an agent would need to know.

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% for the single parameter, and the description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own description ('The number to disconnect'). The phrase 'platform number' maps directly to the parameter, but no new semantics are introduced. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 (disconnect/detach) on a defined resource (owner's WhatsApp route from a platform number) and explicitly delimits the scope to this account only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like attach_agent_whatsapp and get_agent_whatsapp. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use (to remove the owner's route from a number) and provides context that other accounts are unaffected. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the opposite action (attach) is self-evident from the sibling list. Lacks explicit exclusions but context is clear.

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