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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: the user-facing effect (clients get no answers) and the authorization requirement (admin or owner). The 'Two steps' phrasing gestures at a confirmation flow but is too terse to convey the mechanism without the schema's confirm_token description.

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?

The consequence and the reconnect path are front-loaded in a single efficient sentence. However, 'Two steps.' is a fragment whose referent is only resolvable from the schema, so it consumes space without fully paying for itself.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, inverse tool, and permission level, which is most of what an agent needs. It could go further on what happens to existing conversations or bot settings after disconnect, which is the main open question for a destructive action.

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% and the confirm_token flow is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only alludes to it via 'Two steps' and adds no format or value semantics of its own, so 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?

Specific verb (disconnect) plus specific resource (Telegram bot) and a concrete consequence (clients writing to it get no answers). This cleanly separates it from dosai_connect_telegram_bot, dosai_disconnect_instagram, and dosai_disconnect_whatsapp without ambiguity.

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?

Names the counterpart tool for the reverse operation and states the permission level ('Admin or owner'), which tells an agent both the inverse action and a prerequisite. It does not spell out when a caller should avoid disconnecting (e.g., an active broadcast), so it stops short of the explicit when-not guidance a 5 would need.

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