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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the removal is permanent, it disconnects the account, and a fresh authorization is needed to reuse it. It stops short of saying what happens to already-scheduled posts.

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, each earning its place: what it does, the prerequisite call, and the consequence. The destructive nature is front-loaded in the first word.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the prerequisite and the irreversibility/re-auth consequence, which is close to complete for a single-parameter destructive tool; only downstream effects on scheduled posts are unaddressed.

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 sole parameter's description already says it comes from connections.list, so the description's instruction to call connections.list first is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Permanently removes') and resource ('a connected social media account authorization') plus the scope ('from the authenticated Blog2Social user'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools connections.add and connections.list.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite workflow: 'Call connections.list first to retrieve the correct client_user_network_id.' It also states the post-condition that re-authorization is required, which functions as a usage warning. It does not, however, state when NOT to use this versus an alternative (e.g., temporarily disabling an account).

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