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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: the removal cascades to anything still scheduled, and a confirmation step is expected. It stops short of stating whether the account can be reconnected or data recovered.

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 action and its cascade, followed by the required confirmation behavior. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 one-param mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the cascade scope and confirmation requirement an agent needs. The only gap is not naming the tool that yields the scheduled-post count it tells the agent to report.

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 100% and the single accountId is documented as coming from list_accounts, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces that the target is a *connected* account but adds no format or lookup detail beyond that.

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 ("Removes a connected account") plus the side effect of cancelling scheduled posts, which distinguishes it from connect_account and from cancel_campaign_posts. It never names the inverse sibling explicitly, but no reasonable agent would confuse the two.

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?

Gives a concrete pre-call procedure: report the number of affected posts, then ask the user to confirm. This is real when/how guidance for a destructive action, though it doesn't say which tool supplies that count or when disconnecting is preferable to e.g. pausing a campaign.

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