Disconnect a Google account

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is destroyed (stored tokens), what is removed (registry entry), that it is irreversible, and that a confirmation step gates execution. That is exactly the added-value disclosure expected for 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?

Three tight sentences: action, consequences/irreversibility, then the confirmation requirement. Front-loaded and 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 two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, and the confirmation gate; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100%, including detailed semantics for account and confirm_token, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes the confirmation requirement and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Revoke this server's access to a Google account') and the concrete effects: delete stored tokens, remove from registry. An agent can clearly distinguish this from connect_account among siblings.

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 clear context: destructive, irreversible, and reconnecting requires fresh Google consent, plus 'Requires confirmation'. It does not explicitly name connect_account as the reverse alternative, but the consequence statement effectively routes the decision.

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