Disconnect a Gmail mailbox

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what is destroyed (alias plus encrypted OAuth token) and what is preserved (the Google Account grant), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences, both informative, with the core action front-loaded and the critical scope limitation in the second sentence. No filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

Given a single simple parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and constraints. It could mention side effects on other local data or error behavior, but for this tool's complexity, the provided context is sufficient.

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 already fully documents the only parameter 'alias', including the 'with or without @' detail, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. This is the appropriate baseline because schema coverage is 100%.

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 a specific action: 'Delete one mailbox alias and its encrypted OAuth token from this computer.' It names the resource and the scope, making it easy for an agent to distinguish from list/search/read siblings.

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 behavior is described clearly, and the statement 'This does not revoke the grant in the Google Account' implies a key usage boundary, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when to use an alternative. The context can be inferred but is not directly stated.

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