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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the saved login) and what survives (existing posts). It does not address reversibility, permissions, or effects on drafts/scheduled content, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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, zero filler, with the destructive action stated first and the retention caveat immediately after.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, scope of deletion, and a key data-retention caveat. Minor gaps around reversibility and permissions keep it from being 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'a network' but never explains the wip/bluesky enum values or the expected input format; the self-explanatory enum in the schema does most of the work.

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 and resource: 'Disconnect a network and delete its saved login.' It also delimits scope by noting posts already made are retained, which cleanly separates it from add_social_account and list_social_accounts.

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 disconnect framing makes the use case clear (removing a connected network), and the sibling set makes add_social_account the obvious inverse. It never explicitly says when not to use it or names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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