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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it requires the integrations permission, fails when any site still delivers to HubSpot, and has the serious side effect that forms would keep working while every lead delivery fails. It also makes the irreversible nature concrete by explaining that reconnection is a human-only OAuth consent screen. This goes well beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 dense but well structured: the core action comes first, followed by the relation to a sibling, a critical refusal condition, the one-way nature, and the permission requirement. Each sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 description covers prerequisites, preconditions, failure modes, side effects, irreversibility, and the alternative path through cromanion_set_lead_destination. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value detail is not a gap. The agent has enough context to decide correctly whether and when to invoke this tool.

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 only parameter, siteId, already has 100% schema documentation, including when it is required and that it is refused if omitted when multiple sites are covered. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description immediately states the specific action: 'Sever the account's HubSpot connection.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming itself as 'the other half of cromanion_set_lead_destination's `hubspot` option,' so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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 explicitly explains when the tool is appropriate: it is the counterpart to setting a HubSpot destination and should be used to remove leads from a CRM. It also gives a clear precondition and exclusion — disconnection is refused while any site still delivers to HubSpot, and the user should change those destinations first. It further warns that reconnection is not a tool action but a human-only OAuth flow, so the agent should treat this as one-way and communicate that before calling.

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