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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value beyond them: it scopes the destruction to agent access while explicitly stating that content, history and controls survive. It also discloses the post-condition that the replacement capability is bound to the editor key. It stops short of saying whether revocation is immediate or whether the previous capability can be restored.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary effect (access revocation) front-loaded and the preservation guarantee immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Return values are covered by the existing output schema, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need only explain effect and scope, which it does. A minor gap remains around prerequisites and reversibility, but nothing required to call the tool 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%, so both parameters are already explained in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces the editorKey's role ('sealed to the editor key') and does not add format, source, or handling details for either parameter beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description states a specific action and effect: the document capability is replaced, every agent holding it loses access, and content/history/controls persist. That is far more than a restatement of the name, and it clarifies the otherwise ambiguous title 'Disconnect agents'. It does not, however, contrast itself with near neighbors like document.set_policy, document.sync or document.delete.

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 intended scenario (revoking agent access while preserving the document) is implied clearly enough to guide a choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (editor key ownership), and no named alternative such as set_policy for less drastic restriction. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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