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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the confirm gate, that the effect is irreversible from this tool, that it does not delete the account or history, and the recovery path (re-request or re-invite). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and gating, followed by scope and reversibility. Every sentence earns its place and none is redundant.

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 2-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, gating, non-destructive scope, and irreversibility. Minor omissions remain — no mention of whether the client is notified or what a preview returns — but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 coverage is 50% — the 'confirm' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, but clientId has no description in either place. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so it neither compensates for the gap nor overstates it; 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+resource ('End the coaching relationship with a client') and immediately draws the boundary against the nearest confusion point — account deletion — so an agent can separate it from destructive siblings. The scope is unambiguous.

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 'confirm-gated' framing and the 'only disconnects them from this coach' clause tell the agent when this tool applies versus a true account deletion. It does not name an explicit alternative tool (e.g., reassign_client_to_coach or remove_coach_from_organization), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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