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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by specifying the consequence: the action is not undoable and deleting a HubSpot portal also deletes every record it synced. That is exactly the collateral-damage context an agent needs before an irreversible call, beyond what the boolean hint conveys.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the danger, then the anti-pattern, then the trigger condition. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the irreversibility, the data-loss scope, the read-path alternative, and the invocation precondition. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or avoid calling it.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `key` and `account` are already documented in the schema, including the conditional requirement on `account`. The description adds only the soft hint 'naming what', which does not materially extend the schema. 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 ('Disconnect one connected account') with the singular scope made explicit. It also names the sibling tool it must not be confused with, so an agent can distinguish it from list_integrations without opening either 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?

Gives both a negative rule ('Never call this to check anything; call list_integrations for that') and a positive gating condition ('Only call it when the user has asked to disconnect, in their own words, naming what'). This is explicit when/when-not plus the named alternative.

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