account-remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it warns that stored tokens are deleted permanently, and explains the side effect where the first remaining account becomes active if the active account is removed. This is exactly the kind of destructive-action transparency an agent needs.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the primary action and permanence are front-loaded, followed by the active-account edge case and the parameter requirement. Every sentence earns its place and the structure prioritizes the most decision-relevant information first.

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-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: the destructive action, the active-account edge case, and the required input. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens when the last account is removed, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already defines accountId as 'Email address or alias of account to remove'. The description's closing sentence ('Requires email or alias parameter') merely restates the schema's required field and its format, adding no new semantic detail beyond the structured data.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('mcp-gmail account') and states the permanent consequence ('delete stored tokens permanently'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like account-switch, account-list, and account-me, which cover different account operations.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: the tool is clearly for removing accounts, and the active-account fallback rule gives situational context. However, it never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it (e.g., when the user only wants to switch accounts rather than delete one), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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