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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the substance an agent actually needs: what is destroyed (local credentials and cached history), what is NOT destroyed (the provider-side account), and the recovery cost (owner must re-authorize). This is disclosure well beyond 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the scope boundary, then the safety instruction. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers action, scope of destruction, and user-consent requirement. It omits what happens to derived data (scheduled posts, history dependent on the account) and whether the action is idempotent, but those are modest gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema (accountId from list_accounts, profileId from list_profiles). The description adds no parameter detail, 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 and resource with scope: 'Remove Adeli's credentials and cached history for one account.' It immediately clarifies the boundary of the operation (provider-side account survives), which separates it from any true deletion semantics and from refresh_accounts/start_connect siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Confirm with the user first') and the practical consequence of using it (reconnecting requires the account owner to authorize again), which tells the agent this is a high-friction, deliberate action. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., refresh_accounts when the goal is just to re-sync), so it stops short of 5.

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