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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the two-step confirmation behavior: first call with confirm=false previews, confirm=true unlinks. It also reassures about data safety ('Your chats stay in Zalo') and clarifies the local Mac-only impact, which is valuable context not present in 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 tightly written sentences cover the function, the non-destructive scope, and the confirmation flow. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the action, side effects, reconnection path, and confirmation protocol. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke it 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 schema already describes the confirm parameter as 'Must be true to actually unlink,' giving 100% coverage. The description adds behavioral meaning by linking confirm=false to preview and confirm=true to actual unlinking, which enriches the parameter's semantics beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Unlink Zalo from Local MCP' and explicitly scopes the action to 'removes the saved session on this Mac.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling zalo_connect by explaining the disconnect effect and the reconnection path.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to disconnect this Mac from Zalo and stop Zalo tools from working. It also names zalo_connect as the alternative for restoring functionality. It does not state explicit exclusion scenarios, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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