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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing that the operation is destructive, not undoable, and that disconnecting a HubSpot portal deletes every synced record. This is exactly the kind of high-stakes behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three terse sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second warns of the destructive consequence, and the third gives routing guidance. The most safety-critical information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, when to call it, and when not to call it. An agent has everything needed to decide correctly whether and how 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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the example values and the requirement to use the exact label reported by list_integrations. The description adds a light behavioral constraint ('naming what') but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 one connected account') and clearly distinguishes this from related tools like list_integrations and disconnect_graph_objects. It also adds important scoping detail ('one connected account') that makes the tool's exact purpose unambiguous.

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 says when not to call it ('Never call this to check anything') and names the alternative (list_integrations). It also states the only appropriate trigger: when the user has asked to disconnect, in their own words, naming what. This is explicit routing guidance with both positive and negative conditions.

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