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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: token deletion, removal from pending and recurring posts, plan-count impact, published posts remaining on the network, and the Facebook per-page scoping rule. It also names the required permission (accounts.manage, held by Admin), which 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and side effects, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information (side effects, status applicability, FB scoping, published-post exception, permission). It is on the long side at seven clauses and the reconnection sentence could be tighter, but nothing is redundant.

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, two-parameter tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description covers what an agent still needs: irreversibility path, blast radius on scheduled content, permission requirement, and the confirmation ritual. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by clarifying a semantic ambiguity the schema only hints at: for Facebook the identifier is the page, not the login, so only that page is affected. It says nothing extra about workspaceId, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Disconnect a social account from the workspace') and immediately anchors it to a familiar surface ('the same way the Connectors page does'). It also carves out the Facebook page-vs-login distinction, which is what would otherwise be confused with account removal at the login level.

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?

Gives explicit conditions ('Works for accounts in any status, so an unauthorized account can be cleaned up without reconnecting it') and an explicit alternative path for reversal ('create_connect_link can send a link'), naming the sibling tool. It also states the required precondition of user confirmation.

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