Disconnect console account

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds value by disclosing exactly what is destroyed: the account plus its stored keychain credential. The confirmation instruction adds a permission-related behavioral cue; only rate-limit/irreversibility specifics are absent.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope stated first and the confirmation requirement immediately after. Every clause carries 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, destruction scope, and the confirmation prerequisite. Only a note on irreversibility or recovery (whether the key can be re-added via connect_console) is missing.

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% for the single accountId parameter, so the schema fully documents it (type, length bounds, meaning). The description adds no extra semantics about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Remove') plus resource ('console account') and adds the side effect of deleting the stored key from the keychain. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling connect_console, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Ask the owner first' gives a minimal pre-call confirmation rule, which is genuine guidance for a destructive action. However, there is no statement of when to prefer alternatives (e.g., merely re-authenticating vs. fully disconnecting) or any exclusion conditions.

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