Disconnect E*TRADE

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed (the access token) versus what survives (the consumer key and secret), and why that matters for reconnection. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or error behavior on a missing/already-revoked token.

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?

Three sentences ordered by importance: what is revoked, what remains, then when to use it. No filler, and the reuse consequence is front-loaded with the destructive action rather than buried.

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 zero-argument destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the exact state change, the residual state, and the reconnect path. An agent can call this correctly and predict its effect without further context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline for a no-argument tool.

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 pair — revoke and delete the stored E*TRADE access token — plus the end effect (session ends). It explicitly contrasts with `etrade_connect`, which it names, so an agent can distinguish the two without reading 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?

Gives three concrete triggering situations: handing over the machine, switching between sandbox and production key pairs, and a misbehaving token. It also names the follow-up alternative (`etrade_connect`), which is the only sensible sibling for the reverse action.

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