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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the operation is a soft-deactivate, it revokes the upstream access token, linked accounts are not deleted, they become manual accounts, and transaction history is preserved. This directly enriches the destructiveHint=true annotation without contradicting it.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured, with the core action in the first sentence, important side-effect clarification immediately after, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence 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 one-parameter, destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input, the side effects, the non-destructive outcome for accounts, and the return status content. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that item_id is 'The PlaidItem.id to unlink,' giving the integer parameter a clear semantic identity and linking it to the entity being unlinked.

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 and resource: 'Unlink a Plaid item (soft-deactivate) and revoke the upstream access token at Plaid.' It also clarifies the key distinction from deletion by explaining that linked accounts become manual accounts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_account or sync_plaid_item.

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 implies the use case: when a user wants to unlink a Plaid bank connection while preserving account data. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like sync_plaid_item or delete_account, nor does it mention exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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