admin_disconnect_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the action is irreversible and that the account must be reconnected from scratch, which is critical and non-obvious. It does not mention permissions or side effects beyond this, but for a simple disconnect action, this is strong transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences total. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second delivers a crucial warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: the action and its irreversible nature. It does not detail response formats or prerequisites, but given the minimal complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides a complete description of the sole parameter, accountId ('UUID of the account to disconnect'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Disconnect' followed by the resource 'a LinkedIn account,' clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like admin_connect_account by focusing on the removal/irreversible action, and the irreversibility note adds important context without ambiguity.

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 description implies usage through its clear action and resource, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Since the purpose is obvious and there are no exclusions or alternative references, it falls under 'implied usage'.

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