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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it spells out the concrete blast radius (connections stop working, end users can no longer authorize), the special-case data loss in Sandbox (Synthetic Data), the environment isolation, and the auth requirement. The annotations only flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so this added consequence detail is exactly the value the description should provide for a destructive mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then consequences, then the edge case, then the auth requirement. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, blast radius, the environment-specific data-loss caveat, and permission requirements. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to warn the user beforehand.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the `env` parameter: the choice of environment determines the blast radius, and specifically that a Sandbox value triggers test-data deletion. That consequence-per-value detail is not in the schema and materially affects how an agent picks the argument.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Deactivate an integration") and immediately bounds the scope to "one environment of this workspace," with a later clause confirming other environments are unaffected. The reference to "until it is activated again" implicitly separates it from activate_unified_integration and from workspace-wide mutations without requiring the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it names the prerequisite (workspace admin's API key) and the condition under which someone would need this (cutting off existing connections and end-user authorization). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as activate_unified_integration or remove_unified_connection, so the exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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