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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that by scoping what is and isn't destroyed: only the stored login goes, while already-sent and imported recipes persist. It stops short of saying whether re-authentication is required afterward or what happens on disconnect failure.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded and load-bearing: the first defines the action, the second preempts the most likely agent/user misconception about data loss.

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?

With an output schema present, no parameters, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the post-disconnect state (e.g., whether the account must be reconnected) is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to compensate for and the empty schema is fully consistent with the no-argument behavior described.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('the user's stored Cookidoo login') scoped to ask.recipes, which lets an agent distinguish it from connect_cookidoo and the recipe-level 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?

The description implies when the tool applies (removing a stored login) but never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition, such as pointing to connect_cookidoo for re-authentication or clarifying that it doesn't touch Cookidoo-side data.

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