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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by enumerating what destruction means here — blocked dates are freed and X-Lock holds are released on partner calendars. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and then explains its effects, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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, destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing piece — the downstream side effects on blocked dates and partner holds. Only irreversibility/auth expectations are left unstated, a minor gap given the destructiveHint annotation.

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% and the single 'id' parameter already documents itself as the source id from list_calendars. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies where the schema does the work.

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 precise verb+resource, 'Disconnect an external calendar,' which is clearly distinct from the sibling add_calendar, sync_calendar, and list_calendars. It also sketches the effect of disconnecting, but never names a sibling to contrast against, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explains the consequences of the operation but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., permissions or ownership), and no explicit routing between this and remove_block or sync_calendar. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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