Disconnect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by scoping the action to 'this machine's' token and clarifying that credential material is both revoked and removed from the local machine, not just the account.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive action and its scope appear immediately, which is exactly right for a zero-argument tool.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly sufficient. It stops just short of stating whether revocation is server-side as well as local, which matters for an agent deciding whether re-connecting is required.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics could be added or omitted.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Revoke this machine's Ads Optimiser token and delete it') that an agent can act on directly. It is naturally the inverse of the connect/finish_connect siblings, so the purpose is effectively distinguished, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'disconnect' — the agent can infer this is the cleanup step after connecting, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of what state the machine must be in first.

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