ecp_git_disconnect_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the disconnect action without disclosing consequences such as whether connected repositories, webhooks, or OAuth tokens are affected. The confirm:true parameter hints at destructiveness, but the description does not explain it.

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 no filler. It is appropriately short, though it slightly repeats the connect root in 'disconnect/connected'.

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 potentially destructive action with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain preconditions, side effects, and success behavior. It only offers a terse statement of the action, leaving important context unanswered.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The provider enum and the confirm const:true are only visible in the schema, with no explanation of what they mean or why confirmation is required.

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 clear action verb ('Disconnect') and a specific resource ('connected git provider'). It distinguishes the tool from related git management siblings like ecp_git_list_connections and ecp_git_authorize_url, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as requiring an existing connection. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and brief description.

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