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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers important impact details: campaigns or SDR searches sending from the account stop immediately and daily capacity drops. It does not mention reversibility, required permissions, or the return value, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate consequences, followed by the approval prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no 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, annotation-free tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the most critical behavioral impact and the required approval workflow. The only notable omission is the meaning of the `id` parameter, which leaves a small but real gap.

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 0% for the single required `id` parameter, meaning the schema provides no meaning. The description never explains what `id` refers to (presumably a LinkedIn account identifier), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Remove a LinkedIn account from the workspace.' It clearly distinguishes this destructive disconnect from siblings like connect_linkedin_account and reconnect_linkedin_account by naming the exact resource operation.

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 explicitly states the required prerequisite: 'Only call after the user reviewed `preview_disconnect_linkedin_account` and explicitly approved.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name any alternative tool or when-not condition beyond the approval gate.

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