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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden and does so well by explicitly saying "Changes nothing," which confirms non-destructive behavior. It does not cover permissions or response details, but the critical dry-run behavior is disclosed.

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 definition is two short sentences, front-loaded with "Dry-run" and the core promise that nothing changes. There is no wasted text.

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 simple preview tool with one enum parameter, the description sufficiently explains the dry-run safety behavior and what the preview shows. It could mention the provider input or error behavior when no connection exists, but the essential context is present.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the required "provider" parameter or explains the kommo/hubspot choices. The enum in the schema provides allowed values, but the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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 states a specific action and scope: a dry-run that shows which CRM connection would be removed and explicitly changes nothing. This clearly distinguishes it from the actual disconnect_crm_integration 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?

The word "Dry-run" strongly implies it should be used before making a real change, but the description does not explicitly name disconnect_crm_integration as the alternative or state when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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