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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes far beyond them: publishing stops immediately, a plan slot is freed, the account vanishes from chirpie_list_accounts, repeat calls return 404, scheduled posts are cancelled with quota returned, `canceled_posts` reports the count, and published posts keep history but return `account_id: null`. It also discloses irreversibility and pre-call inspection via `scheduled_posts`.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and consequence, and nearly every clause carries distinct information (slot freeing, 404, cancellation, quota return, history behavior). It is dense rather than wasteful, though the run of chained clauses is longer than strictly needed for a single-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the response field (`canceled_posts`) and the account-state fields (`account_id: null`) an agent will see. It also documents the pre-flight signal (`scheduled_posts`) and the irreversibility, so nothing needed to call this 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 100% and the tool has only one parameter (account_id), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds only the incidental note that a repeat call with 'the same id' 404s, which is behavioral rather than parameter meaning. 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?

Specific verb (disconnect) plus resource (connected account), and it explicitly differentiates from the closest sibling chirpie_deactivate_account, stating that deactivate keeps the connection while this removes it. An agent can pick between the two 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?

States the when-to-use condition (permanent removal vs. temporary deactivation), names the alternative tool explicitly, and adds the recovery cost: 'Reconnecting it means the user authorizing Chirpie on that platform again.' Exclusions and alternatives are both spelled out.

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