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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new information: exactly what is destroyed (credentials and the list) and what survives (contacts, subject to consent). That is useful blast-radius detail beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't address whether the disconnect is reversible or what happens to automations tied to the integration.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the data consequences; every clause carries distinct information and nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the most important question an agent has: what is lost versus retained. Gaps remain around reversibility (can the integration be reconnected) and side effects on related automations, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

With only one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines "id" as the Integration id, so the baseline is 3. The description refers to "a tool" rather than confirming the identifier is an integration id, adding no format or sourcing guidance 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Disconnect a tool") and immediately states the consequences for credentials, the integration-owned list, and contacts, which makes it distinguishable from connect_integration, sync_integration, and update_integration. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the effect statement; there is no explicit "use this when" guidance, no precondition such as the integration needing to be connected first, and no pointer to sync_integration or update_integration as the non-destructive alternatives. The agent can infer the situation, but nothing is spelled out.

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