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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it explains exactly what is destroyed (the hub's key) and reassures that the account and its data remain the user's, scoping the blast radius. It does not say whether disabling is reversible or what a repeat call returns.

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 sign-in prerequisite before the action itself. The auth preamble is slightly long relative to the core statement, but each sentence carries necessary information.

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 no output schema, the description covers auth and destruction scope well, but leaves the service identifier undocumented and does not mention reversibility via datailo_enable or behavior on repeated calls. The absence of an output schema removes any need to describe return values.

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 50%: the session parameter is fully documented in the schema, but 'service' has no description anywhere. The description says 'a service' without indicating the expected identifier format (name, slug, ID) or accepted values, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for the half-covered 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Disable a service: revokes the hub's key for it') and clarifies the scope of the effect. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling datailo_enable, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites (call datailo_connect(email) and datailo_connect_verify first, or omit if the connection is already signed in via OAuth/key), which is strong usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to disable or pointing to datailo_enable as the reversal path.

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