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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — it doesn't say what is removed, whether credentials are revoked, whether site data is preserved, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is arguably too sparse for a destructive operation.

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 destructive, irreversible-sounding operation with no output schema, the description should clarify consequences (what happens to the site, its data, or stored credentials) and any preconditions. As written, an agent cannot tell what disconnecting actually does.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single site_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including the pointer to swiftly_list_sites. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('a WordPress site from SwiftlyMCP'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling swiftly_connect_site or mention that it reverses the connection, but the name and verb are clear enough to distinguish it.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the site must be currently connected), and no mention of related tools like swiftly_list_sites or swiftly_connect_site. The agent must infer all of this.

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