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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'dry-run' usefully signals a non-mutating preview. It also discloses what the call surfaces (capacity that would be lost), which is real behavioral context. It does not explicitly state that nothing is destroyed, so a small gap remains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the dry-run purpose and the imperative usage rule placed last. No filler; every phrase earns its place.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and ordering but leaves the 'id' parameter and any indication of the preview's shape undocumented. Adequate but not fully rounded.

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% with one required parameter ('id'), and the description never explains what that id refers to (e.g. which LinkedIn account). The tool name makes it inferable, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Dry-run of removing a LinkedIn account') and even names the effect ('showing the capacity that would be lost'), which goes beyond restating the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the real disconnect_linkedin_account sibling via 'dry-run', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'ALWAYS call this first' is a clear, actionable when-to-use directive that routes the agent to invoke this before the actual disconnect. It stops short of naming the alternative tool, but the sequencing rule is unambiguous.

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