Disconnect a connected account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant context: it always drops stored credentials, stops tools immediately, does not affect published posts, and explains that whether the provider grant is revoked depends on the provider (with examples like Threads and Microsoft lacking revocation endpoints). It also discloses that reconnection requires a browser. These details exceed the annotation's coverage and provide critical behavior transparency.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence serves a purpose: the main action is front-loaded, followed by critical effects, provider-specific nuances, and instructions. There is no fluff or repetition; the structure is clear and information-dense without being verbose.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects for correct invocation: the irreversible nature, impact on credentials and posts, provider-dependent revocation, the need for a browser to reconnect, the confirm flag, and where to get provider IDs. Given the destructive nature and complexity, it is fully complete for an agent to act correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that 'confirm' must be true and explaining the 'provider' parameter is 'exactly as list_connectors reports it' with examples. This enriches the schema definitions with practical usage context, warranting a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: disconnecting a third-party account from the workspace, with an explicit list of supported providers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_connectors by being the action of disconnecting, not listing. The verb 'disconnect' and the resource 'third-party account' are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: 'Use list_connectors for the exact provider ids' and 'Name the provider to the user, then call with confirm:true.' It also warns that reconnecting requires a browser and that an agent cannot undo this action, making it clear when and how to use the tool. It names the alternative (list_connectors) and provides the condition for use.

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