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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and readOnlyHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it drops the stored connection, best-effort revokes the GitHub-side grant, and returns disconnected:true even when nothing was connected. This fully explains the operation's side effects and edge case behavior.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: the core action, the behavioral notes, and the follow-up step. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter action with an output schema, the description covers the operation's effect, idempotency, return behavior, and next step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document. The description correctly requires no parameter explanation, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden to compensate for.

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 states a specific action ('Disconnect / switch GitHub account') and resource ('stored GitHub connection'), clearly distinguishing it from findagent_connect_github. It also explains the purpose of disconnecting so a different GitHub account can be authorized.

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 explicit sequencing: after disconnecting, call findagent_connect_github to connect the new account. It also clarifies the idempotent nature, so the agent knows it is safe to call even when nothing is connected.

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