Disconnect provider

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description reinforces this with the confirmation requirement ('Use only after the user confirms deletion'). However, it doesn't disclose what happens to downstream artifacts (e.g., whether associated webhooks, alerts, or keywords are affected), which would add meaningful transparency for a destructive disconnect operation.

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, tight sentence with a guardrail attached. Two sentences, zero waste. Every word earns its place—the verb, target, scope, and usage constraint are all present.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter coverage (idempotency_key undocumented), the description could do more. It doesn't address reversibility, side effects on related resources, or the response format. However, it's a focused action ('disconnect a provider') and annotations carry some safety context. Adequate but not rich.

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 67%, so project_id and provider_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that. The idempotency_key (the third, undocumented param) is not explained anywhere—its purpose and when to set it are unknown. Baseline 3 applies since schema does most of the param work, but the undocumented idempotency_key gap slightly limits compensation.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Disconnect a provider from a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_provider, update_provider_settings, set_provider_enabled, and set_provider_priority. The scope (project + provider) is explicit.

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 states a clear when-to-use constraint: 'Use only after the user confirms deletion.' This is an explicit usage guardrail for a destructive operation. It doesn't name alternatives like delete_project or set_provider_enabled for similar scenarios, but the confirmation requirement is valuable and specific.

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