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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating that the operation runs immediately, has no preview or confirmation step, and that reconnecting requires a new API token. This is important behavioral context for a state-changing tool and does not contradict 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?

Two sentences deliver the action, the side effect, the execution timing, and the recovery path without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema, the description fully covers the invocation decision: what it does, that it runs without confirmation, and how to reconnect. No prerequisites or additional side effects are 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist.

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 opens with a specific action verb ('Disconnect') and names the resource (Todoist), then clarifies the concrete effect: removing the stored API token. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like connect_todoist and the other disconnect_* tools.

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?

The usage scenario is clearly implied by the tool name and first clause, and the description adds useful timing/recovery context. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with connect_todoist or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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