pfm_disconnect_social_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that auth tokens are removed, the account is marked disconnected, the record is kept, and it can be reconnected by the owner. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it omits potential edge cases like idempotency or permission requirements.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and its immediate effects (removes tokens, marks disconnected), while the second clarifies retention and reconnection. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes, record retention, and recovery path. It could mention error conditions or idempotency, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds behavioral context (record kept, reconnection) but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses the specific verb 'Disconnect' with the resource 'social account', and explicitly distinguishes from deletion by stating the record is kept. This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like create/update/get social account.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to disconnect while retaining the record for potential reconnection). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the absence of a delete_social_account sibling and the retention clause provides sufficient context.

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