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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does most of it: syncing stops, tokens and settings are deleted, and reconnecting requires OAuth again — all material consequences for a destructive action. It stops short of stating what happens to already-synced CRM data or any permission/admin requirement, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the destructive consequences are front-loaded before the gating precondition. Nothing repeated or padded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers consequences and the required prior approval. A note on previously synced CRM data and who may perform the operation would close the remaining gap, but nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

The single parameter is an enum with two self-explanatory values, so the schema does most of the work despite 0% description coverage. The phrase 'Kommo/HubSpot connection' confirms that provider selects which integration is removed, but adds no format or default detail beyond the enum.

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?

A specific verb (Remove/disconnect) plus a specific resource (the Kommo/HubSpot CRM connection). Naming the two providers distinguishes it immediately from connect_crm_integration and from every other disconnect_* sibling.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition that also names the alternative: 'Only call after the user approved preview_disconnect_crm_integration.' An agent knows to route to the preview tool first and must not call this unprompted.

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