aircall_disable_integration

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scope 'associated with the current API credentials' but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or impact on ongoing operations. It does not contradict the annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

A single, clear sentence that conveys the purpose without any filler. The information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the target resource and the action, and the scope is clarified by 'current API credentials'. No additional context is necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to explain. The description is not required to detail parameters, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is high. It does not add parameter-specific information, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the verb 'Disable' and the resource 'the integration associated with the current API credentials', making its action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aircall_enable_integration and aircall_get_integration by explicitly targeting the disable operation.

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 implies usage when one wants to disable the current integration, but it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which alternatives to prefer. There is no mention of checking integration status via aircall_get_integration or re-enabling via aircall_enable_integration.

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