Remove my own account from a shared connection

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only), the description discloses that only your contribution is removed, teammates' accounts remain functional, and nothing changes at the provider. It also notes that reconnecting shares again, adding context about reversibility and scope.

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 longer than necessary but every clause adds value: explanation of the multiContributor context, precise side effects, and the alternative. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slight verbosity prevents a 5, but no redundancy exists.

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, shared-connection mutation, the description covers what happens, who is affected, and when to use it, plus directs to list_connectors for verification. No output schema exists but none is needed; the agent has everything to call it 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%, and the schema description already explains the provider parameter with examples. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond the schema; it references 'this brand' but doesn't clarify the mapping further. 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?

The description clearly states 'remove YOURS from this brand' with specifics: drops stored credential, stops sharing your accounts. It distinguishes from disconnect_connector by naming it as the alternative for connections you own, so an agent can differentiate without opening the 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of disconnect_connector when the connection is not yours to remove' and explains why disconnect_connector is different (revokes at provider, only creator can call). This gives clear when and when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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