Disconnect a client's Xero org

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the risk class is known; the description adds the concrete blast radius (tokens and cached data are deleted) and the non-obvious two-phase preview-then-confirm behavior, which annotations cannot express. It does not mention that reconnection requires the connect_org flow, leaving reversibility implicit.

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, no filler, and the destructive effect is front-loaded before the procedural instruction. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers impact, safety sequencing, and the meaning of both parameters. The only minor omission is what the confirm=false preview actually returns, but the agent has enough to act safely.

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 coverage is 50%: 'org' is well documented in-schema, but 'confirm' has only a type and default with no description. The description compensates by explaining what each confirm value does, so the undocumented parameter is covered in prose.

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 (revokes/disconnect) plus the exact resource (this app's Xero connection for one org) and enumerates the side effects (deletes stored tokens and cached data). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling connect_org_start / connect_org_complete tools, which do the opposite.

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 an explicit operating procedure: call with confirm=false first, ask the user, then call with confirm=true. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use list_orgs to resolve the org identifier) or saying when not to disconnect.

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