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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the consequence: DMs arrive without their text. It still does not describe auth requirements or whether the passcode can be restored, but with annotations carrying the safety load, this is a meaningful addition.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The phrase '(Statuz Cloud)' is slightly extraneous, but the sentence remains efficient and the consequence is placed where an agent will see it.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and effect. However, it omits when to prefer this over siblings, whether the action is reversible, and any auth or org-scoping notes, leaving gaps for an agent making a destructive choice.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline, which is acceptable when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource combination ('Forget an X account's X Chat passcode'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like accounts_remove or accounts_check. The parenthetical clarifies the effect, though it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The implied use case is narrow enough to infer, but the description provides no explicit routing.

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