remove_account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive/remote profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context that tokens are revoked at X (an external side effect matching openWorldHint), but it omits irreversibility, re-authorization requirements, and failure behavior if the account is unknown. Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the side effect second. No filler, though the phrase 'on this machine' plus 'at X' is slightly awkward and could be sharpened rather than saving space.

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 destructive, two-parameter mutation this covers the essentials: what is deleted and that remote tokens are revoked, with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema to explain. It's still thin on reversibility, permission/auth prerequisites, and the meaning of the undocumented 'account' parameter.

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 50%: the 'revoke' boolean is documented in the schema (including its default true), while the required 'account' string has no description in either place. The description's mention of revoking tokens at X loosely signals the 'revoke' behavior but adds no format or identification detail for 'account'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('forget an authorized account') and adds the remote effect ('revoke its tokens at X'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_account, list_accounts, set_default_account. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast against, so 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'on this machine' implies the operational context (de-authorizing a locally configured account), so usage is indirectly inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings such as add_account or set_default_account, and no prerequisites stated.

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