Remove my own account from a shared connection

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing exactly what happens: stored credential dropped, shared accounts stop being shared, teammates' accounts keep working, provider unchanged, and reconnecting shares again. This gives the agent a precise model of side effects and reversibility, which is essential 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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: the multiContributor precondition, concrete effects, teammate/provider behavior, and explicit comparison to disconnect_connector. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface: when to use, what gets removed, what does not get removed, provider-side behavior, and how to recover by reconnecting. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool safely and 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?

The schema already documents the provider parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by specifying that the provider id must match exactly what list_connectors reports and gives concrete examples, reducing the risk of incorrect values.

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 states a specific action — remove your own account from a shared connector — and clearly distinguishes it from disconnect_connector, which revokes the provider grant. The scope ('remove YOURS', not the whole connection) is explicit and prevents confusion with sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of disconnect_connector, and explains why: disconnect_connector is only callable by the connection creator and revokes the grant at the provider. It also tells the agent to check list_connectors for multiContributor status before using, giving clear decision criteria.

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