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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the concrete consequences: removal of the account connection, emission of account.disconnected webhooks, and possible transfer of Instagram scheduled posts to a replacement account. The 'IRREVERSIBLE' warning and the required confirmation gate add real behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the destructive/irreversible warning before the procedural instruction, with zero filler. Every clause carries actionable information (side effects, webhooks, Instagram post transfer, confirmation gate).

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: preconditions (list_accounts, user confirmation), consequences (connection removal, webhook emission, possible post transfer), and reversibility (irreversible). Nothing material is left unspecified.

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 (account_id, confirm) are already documented in the input schema, including the requirement that confirm be true only after explicit user confirmation. The description reinforces the confirmation workflow but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Disconnect') plus the exact resource ('a connected social account') and the system it lives in ('from posterly'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling 'connect_account' and from unrelated mutations like 'delete_post' or 'delete_api_key'.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites and an ordering: call list_accounts first, show the user the exact account/platform/workspace, and obtain explicit confirmation before invoking. This is a complete when/how-to-use protocol rather than a vague hint, and it names the sibling tool to consult first.

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