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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful detail beyond them: the account, photos and credits persist after unlinking. That spells out the blast radius of the call, which the hints only gesture at. It stops short of saying whether the connection_key is invalidated or whether the call is reversible, and idempotentHint=false goes unexplained.

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, both load-bearing: the action first, the preservation guarantee second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and the preservation guarantee, which is the crucial part. It does not say what happens on success or failure, or what state the conversation is left in, which leaves a modest gap for an agent verifying the outcome.

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 schema itself already documents connection_key's origin and secrecy requirement, so the description adds no parameter meaning. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Unlinks this conversation from the user's DatingProfile account." The scope (this conversation, not the whole account) is clear and implicitly distinguishes it from connect_account, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'unlink' — you call it when the user wants to sever the conversation-to-account link. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g., must already be connected), and no mention of connect_account as the inverse operation, so the agent must infer routing.

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