Yandex Metrika: disconnect

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

The annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description goes well beyond that by specifying exactly what is destroyed — exports, token, cache — and what is not recoverable ('Data already shown in the chat cannot be recalled'). It also clarifies that Yandex-side access revocation is out of scope, which prevents a false expectation of full cleanup.

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 short sentences, effects front-loaded, then the irreversibility caveat, then the out-of-scope note. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations and every clause carries new information.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all the decision-relevant facts: what is removed, what is irreversible, and what remains the user's responsibility. An agent can call this correctly and set expectations accurately from the description alone.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single connection_id parameter is documented in the schema with an example and a pointer to metrika_status. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Disconnects a Yandex Metrika connection on this computer') and enumerates the concrete effects (cancels exports, deletes token, clears cache). Paired with the sibling list, an agent can immediately distinguish it from metrika_connect and the read-only status/report tools.

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?

It gives a clear context for use (tearing down a connection) and an explicit boundary condition: revoking app access inside Yandex is a separate user step, so the agent knows this tool does not accomplish that. It stops short of naming when not to use it versus alternatives such as metrika_cancel_job for individual job cleanup.

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