disconnect_meta_page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the consequence (agent stops answering Messenger and Instagram for that page) and the required user confirmation. It does not clarify reversibility or what happens to existing conversations, and defers idempotency to the annotation, so it stops short of 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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the effect front-loaded before prerequisites and the sibling reference last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, prerequisite lookup, user confirmation, and the alternative tool. The remaining gaps are minor: no note on whether disconnection is reversible or what happens to existing Messenger/Instagram conversation history.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It resolves the origin of pageId (get_agent_channels), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the agentId parameter or the identifier format for either. Half the parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Disconnect a Facebook page from an agent') and immediately describes the concrete effect: the agent stops answering Messenger and Instagram for that page. It also names the inverse sibling (create_channel_connect_link), so an agent can distinguish it from related channel tools without opening the 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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm with the user first, tells where pageId comes from (get_agent_channels), and routes the opposite intent to create_channel_connect_link. This is a full when/when-not/alternative triad rather than implied usage.

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