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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description specifies exactly what changes: sending/receiving stops immediately, message history is kept, and reconnection requires a fresh pairing. It also adds the important consent requirement before invoking the destructive action.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying essential information: action, immediate effect, data preservation, and user-consent requirement. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

With one simple parameter, a fully documented schema, an existing output schema, and annotations covering mutation/destruction, the description provides all needed context. It even covers the post-condition (re-pairing required) and the necessary user-consent gate.

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 the single account_id parameter is already well documented as 'the account to disconnect, from wa_list_accounts'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Disconnect'), the resource ('a WhatsApp account from this service'), and the immediate functional effect ('stops sending and receiving'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling wa_pair_account by explaining that reconnecting requires pairing again.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: this is the disconnect operation, and it explicitly instructs the agent to ask the user before calling due to the disruption. It does not explicitly name wa_pair_account as the alternative, but the re-pairing note implies the counterpart tool.

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