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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows something is removed; the description's real contribution is "Nothing in Xero is changed," which scopes the destruction to the local connection and is genuinely additive. It stops short of stating whether stored credentials/tokens are revoked, whether synced data is retained, or whether reconnection is required afterward.

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 with zero filler, and the scope-limiting clause is placed immediately after the action. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 zero-parameter, no-output tool whose annotations already declare destructiveness, idempotency, and external side effects, the definition covers the essentials. The remaining gap is lifecycle behavior after disconnection (token revocation, data retention, need to re-authorize), which the agents would likely want.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No enum, format, or default information is needed.

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?

"Forget the Xero connection" names a specific action and resource, and the second sentence bounds what it affects. It is clear what the tool does, though the word "forget" is metaphorical and the description never explicitly contrasts it with connect_xero, which the agent must infer from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (must a connection exist first?), and no mention of what an agent should call instead if it wants to re-authorize or revoke tokens. The tool is simple enough that usage is implied, but nothing in the text supplies it.

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