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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement ("signed-in session only"), the immediate effect ("access and refresh tokens stop working immediately"), and the reversibility posture ("must ask again to reconnect"). It omits error behavior and what happens to in-flight work, but the core consequences of a destructive action are covered.

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 compact clauses with the precondition front-loaded ahead of the action and its effect. No filler, though the second sentence is a semicolon run-on that could be tightened.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the auth precondition, the immediate token effect, and the reconnect requirement. Missing only edge-case behavior such as errors on unknown ids or treatment of active sessions.

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 single id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explicitly names or explains it. However, "disconnect an AI assistant" implicitly maps the id to the target assistant, which is fairly unambiguous for a single required UUID parameter.

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+resource ("disconnect an AI assistant") that clearly conveys a revocation operation. It does not explicitly name the neighboring tool (assistants_clients_revoke) or contrast with assistants_authorize, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Signed-in session only" gives an important precondition for use, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over assistants_authorize, assistants_clients_revoke, or assistants_list. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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