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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: cleanup may remain pending, a failed wake is not erasure, retries stay the caller's responsibility, reconnect does not restore old grants (irreversibility), and host-action confirmation is required. Some phrasing ('failed wake,' 'retain responsibility') is opaque, keeping it below a 5.

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 main action is front-loaded, but the body is five dense, jargon-laden sentences where clauses like 'cleanup_pending or a failed wake is not provider erasure' are hard to parse. The content is mostly useful, but clarity-per-sentence is weaker than the size warrants.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values; it instead covers prerequisites, failure/cleanup states, irreversibility, and lost-response recovery. This is close to complete for a destructive disconnect, with only the provider_disconnect distinction missing.

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%: agent_id and expected_impact are both documented, including the source of the impact token. The description reinforces that expected_impact comes from gmail_disconnect_impact but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it disables Gmail authority / disconnects Google Email, and explicitly excludes 'generic channel delete,' which distinguishes it from channel_remove and provider_disconnect. The phrasing 'inspected Google Email authority' and 'provider cleanup work' is jargon-heavy, but the core action is identifiable.

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 prerequisite ('Requires lifecycle authority and gmail_disconnect_impact's token'), routing the agent to call the impact tool first, and rules out 'no generic channel delete.' It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling provider_disconnect, so the generic-vs-Gmail routing is left partly implicit.

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