gdex_disconnect

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the destruction is scoped to local key material, funds are unaffected, and the action is reversible via gdex_connect. It does not cover error cases (e.g. unknown accountRef).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with a parenthetical that clarifies scope and a trailing clause that covers safety and recovery. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: what is deleted, that funds are safe, and how to undo it. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior for an invalid accountRef.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Account to forget'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or identifier guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Forget') and resource ('a connected account on this machine') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (deletes its stored keys). It is easily distinguished from siblings like gdex_connect and gdex_accounts.

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?

It gives clear context: use this to remove a locally stored account, and it names the follow-up path (reconnect later with gdex_connect and the key file). It does not state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use, which keeps it short of a 5.

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