Remove my own account from a shared connection

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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: what gets destroyed (your stored credential), collateral effect (your shared accounts stop being shared), what is preserved (teammates' accounts keep working), and reversibility (nothing changes at the provider; reconnect in a browser to share again). This is exactly the extra detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then the side effects, then the alternative. Dense but every clause carries information (destruction, preservation, reversibility, routing). Slightly long, but nothing is padding.

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 single-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, side effects, reversibility, and sibling routing. 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%, so the single 'provider' parameter and its expected format are already documented in the schema. The description references list_connectors indirectly but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('remove YOURS from this profile') with the exact scope: your stored credential is dropped and your shared accounts stop being shared. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling disconnect_connector by naming the condition that selects each. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this instead of disconnect_connector when the connection is not yours to remove,' plus the inverse reason disconnect_connector exists (revokes the provider grant, creator-only). It also points to list_connectors/multiContributor as the precondition for eligibility.

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