payments_disconnect_config

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the verb 'disconnect' — it doesn't state whether the operation is reversible, what state changes occur, or any side effects. Since annotations carry the safety profile but leave the impact ambiguous, the description fails to enrich understanding.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core operation without unnecessary detail, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'provider config' refers to, what the expected outcome is, and doesn't differentiate from the nearby payments_integration tools. An agent might need to inspect sibling definitions to fully understand when this is the right call.

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%: liveMode and locationId each have descriptive text explaining their meaning and defaults. The description contributes no additional parameter insight, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb 'disconnect' and the resource 'provider config', making the primary action clear. It distinguishes itself from create/fetch config siblings through the unique verb, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with payments_delete_integration, which could be a closely related alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like payments_create_config, payments_fetch_config, or payments_delete_integration. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing config, or when disconnecting (vs deleting) is appropriate. The agent is left to infer the usage context.

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