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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the ownership constraint (cannot disconnect the SYNCDATE sign-in account), the dependency constraint (active syncs must be removed first), the specific error code returned (FORBIDDEN), and the permanence of the operation. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 with no filler, and the core action plus its permanence are front-loaded before the conditional failure detail. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical preconditions and the error behavior. It does not state what happens to the account's calendars and events after disconnection, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with account_id already documented as 'Account UUID to disconnect'. The description adds no format, constraint, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 (calendar account) with the irreversibility modifier 'permanently'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as request_account_deletion, reauth_account, or revoke_mcp_connection, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 gives clear usage context by naming the failure conditions (sign-in account, dependent active syncs) and the required ordering ('delete those syncs first'), which effectively tells the agent when the call will be rejected and what to do first. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over sibling account-management tools.

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