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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds what those hints cannot: the bot stops answering immediately, reconnection requires a fresh QR/code, and the caller must be admin or owner. That is real consequence and authorization context rather than a restatement of the hints.

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?

Three short clauses: action, consequence, procedure/permission. Consequence is front-loaded right after the verb and nothing is padded.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility and authorization, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves open what happens to existing conversations or pending messages after unlinking.

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 confirm_token description already spells out the two-call dance and empty-first-call rule. The description's 'Two steps' merely echoes that, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Unlink the WhatsApp number from the bot') with the immediate effect stated ('the bot stops answering there at once'). It is cleanly separable from dosai_connect_* and dosai_get_whatsapp_status siblings without opening a schema.

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?

'Two steps' plus 'Admin or owner' tells the agent this is a confirmation-gated action restricted by role, which is the key precondition. It does not explicitly route the agent to dosai_get_whatsapp_status first or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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