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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds real consequence detail the annotations cannot: the key stops working immediately on AyHire's side, the website session persists, other agents sharing the key are also affected, and this agent's AyHire tools stop functioning afterward. That is exactly the blast-radius information an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, when to use it, what survives, and what happens afterward. The effect is front-loaded before the usage conditions, and the user-utterance list is a practical trigger aid rather than 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 zero-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, side effects on the website and sibling agents, and post-call expectations. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need filled before invoking it.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 — 'End this agent's connection to AyHire' — with a precise scope ('this agent'). The scope phrase distinguishes it from workspace-level siblings like switch_workspace or invite_to_workspace, and an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 trigger conditions ('only when the user asks to sign out, log out, disconnect, remove or forget AyHire here') and an explicit exclusion ('don't try to sign in again unless the user asks to reconnect'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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