accounts_remove

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds concrete detail about what gets destroyed (local profile, refresh token) and what remains untouched (Google data). This is exactly the behavioral context beyond the annotations that an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 filler; the destructive action is front-loaded and the scope boundary is stated immediately after. Every word 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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what it does and what it does not do. It only misses guidance on where to get the profile value (e.g., from accounts_list), leaving a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'profile' parameter's format or source. The phrase 'Remove um perfil local' hints that the parameter identifies the local profile, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action (remove the local profile, delete the refresh token from Credential Manager) and a resource boundary (does not change anything in Google). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accounts_add and accounts_list.

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 to use the tool by describing its scope, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when-not-to-use. The phrase 'does not alter anything in Google' gives some exclusion context, but no sibling names or conditions are provided.

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