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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by specifying exactly what is destroyed (credentials and cached history), what is preserved (the provider-side account), and the downstream consequence that reconnecting requires the owner to re-authorize. That is precisely the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 carrying distinct information: the action and scope, the side-effect boundary, and the required confirmation. The most important constraint is front-loaded with zero filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers scope, what is and isn't destroyed, reversibility implications, and a user-confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with accountId and profileId both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as defaults or format expectations beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Remove Adeli's credentials and cached history for one account') and scopes it to a single account, which cleanly separates it from siblings like refresh_accounts or start_connect. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a procedural precondition ('Confirm with the user first') but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as refresh_accounts or start_connect, nor when disconnection is inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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