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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates and destroys state. The description's one real contribution is disclosing the confirmation flow ("Shows a Confirm button first"), which tells the agent the call may not complete immediately and a user prompt intervenes; however, it does not say what happens on decline, or whether the number is removed immediately or after confirmation.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the confirmation behavior second, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause carries 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 zero-parameter tool with destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the purpose plus the confirmation-step behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. Minor gaps remain around post-confirmation effects and rate/idempotency expectations, but nothing critical to invoking 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to target the removal.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove their WhatsApp number") that clearly identifies the operation, and the possession word "their" implies the current user's workspace context. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling request_whatsapp_verification, but the remove/verify distinction is inferable from the names.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for detaching a WhatsApp number, but the description never states when to use it versus request_whatsapp_verification or what preconditions apply (e.g. a verified number must exist). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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