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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but the description goes further: it names exactly what is destroyed (the store and its API key), the downstream effect (products stop syncing), and the non-obvious two-phase confirmation behavior where the first call only returns a summary and confirmToken. That is material behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, followed by the prerequisite and the confirmation protocol. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effects, the source of the location reference, and the mandatory confirmation handshake. Nothing needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds flow-level meaning: confirmToken is omitted on the first call and used on the retry, and locationRef must come from get_dutchie_status. This clarifies how the parameters interact rather than restating their types.

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 ('Removes one connected Dutchie store and its API key') plus the consequence ('Its products stop syncing'). This clearly separates it from siblings like disconnect_bing, disconnect_gsc, and delete_business_location.

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 the prerequisite for the required locationRef ('Use get_dutchie_status for the location reference') and explains the required two-call confirmation sequence. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., vs sync_dutchie or connect_dutchie), but the operational context is clear.

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