youtube_forget_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It transparently states that the action removes a stored token and clarifies the important limitation that it does not revoke the grant. The mutating nature is evident, and the non-revocation caveat is a valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying limitation follows immediately, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and its non-revocation limitation, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it omits any explanation of the 'alias' parameter and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., prior authorization) or return behavior, leaving minor gaps that an agent might need.

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 has one required parameter 'alias' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'alias' refers to. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to provide this meaning but does not, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 a stored refresh token') on a clear resource (stored refresh token), and explicitly notes it does not revoke the grant, distinguishing it from authorization-related siblings. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It clearly explains what the tool does not do (revoke the grant) and directs the user to an external URL for that purpose, providing when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so the guidance is implicit rather than comparative.

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