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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: access stops immediately, and self-disconnection terminates the current session. It omits auth requirements and behavior on invalid/unknown app ids.

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 load-bearing: the action, its immediate effect, and the self-disconnect edge case. The critical session-ending warning is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its most consequential side effect. The main gap is failure behavior (e.g., disconnecting an app that isn't connected) and disambiguation of the id parameter.

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 has one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden of explaining it. It never identifies what 'id' refers to (app id, connection id?) or its format, leaving the sole parameter semantically undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Disconnect an app you connected'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the only related sibling (connected_apps_list), though the verb contrast makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives, but the caveat 'Disconnecting the app you are using now ends this session' functions as an implied usage precondition. The agent can infer context but is not told the conditions that select this tool over others.

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