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

The destructiveHint annotation already warns of destruction, but the description goes much further by explaining exactly what is deleted or changed: leads stop flowing, webhooks and credentials are removed, and CRM ids may be unlinked if this was the last integration. It also discloses that reconnection requires the dashboard.

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?

A single dense sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and following with consequences and caution. Every clause adds operational value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what gets destroyed, the required caution, and the post-disconnect reconnection path. No critical decision information 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%, so the input schema already documents integration_id and its source. The description repeats 'id from get_integrations' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Disconnect and delete an integration') and immediately distinguishes the operation from siblings like update_integration by describing deletion and disconnection effects. The parenthetical reference to get_integrations clarifies input sourcing 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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: confirm with the user first, and reconnecting must be done via the dashboard. It does not explicitly name update_integration or another alternative, but the destructive nature and confirmation prerequisite are strong usage guidance for this operation.

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