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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what is destroyed (tokens) and what survives (scheduled posts that only targeted this account become drafts) — real behavioral context an agent couldn't get from the annotations alone. Auth/permission requirements are not mentioned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and its destructive effect, then the secondary consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, this covers the essentials: what is removed and what happens to dependent data. It could be slightly more complete by noting behavior for posts that targeted multiple accounts or any auth prerequisites, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'org' and 'account' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about accepted identifier formats or the org default, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Disconnect') and resource ('an account'), plus the concrete consequence of deleting its tokens. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like accounts_connect, accounts_list, and accounts_default.

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 implies when to use it (when you want to remove an account and its tokens) but never names alternatives or exclusions — e.g., how it differs from accounts_chat_forget or accounts_move, or what happens if the account is a default. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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