Disconnect account

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit by going further and enumerating the cascade set (pending schedules, comment automation, inbox, goals, agents) and, importantly, what survives (published history). It stops short of a 5 because it does not say whether reconnection restores anything, whether in-flight posts fail, or whether confirmation is required.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the destructive cascade is front-to-back ordered with the preservation guarantee last. Every clause carries decision-relevant information for a destructive call.

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 one-param tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing piece: blast radius and what is retained. A note on reversibility/reconnect semantics would close the remaining gap.

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 0% and the description does not mention accountId at all, so it fails to compensate. The gap is partly mitigated because a single required 'accountId' string is self-explanatory, which keeps this at an adequate 3 rather than lower.

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?

Specific verb ('Disconnect') plus a specific resource ('an account'), so the agent knows exactly what call this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the inverse sibling connect_account or state the scope boundary (e.g., that it removes the connection rather than deleting data), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name — call this when an account should be unlinked — but there is no explicit when/when-not statement, no mention of the prerequisite that the account must be currently connected, and no pointer to the alternative (connect_account) for the inverse operation.

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