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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond that: the confirm-gated two-phase flow, where the default returns a preview and only confirm: true executes — critical for a destructive operation. It stops short of saying what associated data is lost or whether the action is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety gate. Zero wasted words, and the parenthetical packaging of the confirm flow keeps the main clause scannable.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the confirm gate, which is the key risk. Missing only the blast radius — what a revoke does to historical check-in data or device state — which would make it fully complete.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, kioskId lacks a description and only has minLength. The description reinforces the confirm semantics, which is the most subtle parameter, but adds no guidance on kioskId or organizationId sourcing beyond the schema's own note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pair (disconnect and deactivate) with a clear resource (kiosk), which distinguishes it from create_gym_kiosk, list_gym_kiosks, and set_gym_kiosk_door. Sibling differentiation is implied by the verb rather than explicitly named.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — an agent will infer this is for removing/retiring a kiosk. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement, no preconditions (e.g. kiosk must exist), and no mention of the list_gym_kiosks lookup that would supply kioskId.

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