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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but supplies almost nothing: it doesn't disclose whether the removal is reversible, whether stored credentials/tokens are revoked, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what dependent resources are affected. For a destructive mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but structurally clean and appropriately sized for a one-param tool.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (one required id, no output schema, no nested objects), so not much explanation is strictly required. But with no annotations and no description of side effects or reversibility after removal, an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently in a destructive scenario.

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 100%, so the schema already documents integration_id including its provenance ('UUID from list_integrations'). The description's 'by id' adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('connected integration'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like connect_integration and list_integrations. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'remove' means deleting the integration config entirely or merely severing the connection while retaining it, which matters given the tool name says 'disconnect'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus connect_integration, list_integrations, or delete_* siblings, and no stated prerequisites. The only routing hint is the schema's mention of 'UUID from list_integrations', which is not in the description itself.

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