disconnect_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that this mutates account-scope state, that the vendor-side link and history survive (a non-obvious, reassuring side-effect boundary), and that demo sites are blocked. It omits reversibility/permission requirements, though the existence of a sibling connect_site partly implies reconnection is possible.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the confirmation requirement placed before the operational detail. The all-caps control-scope banner and the line break are slightly awkward but every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what state changes, what does not change, what is prohibited, and that user confirmation is required. Only the source of site_id is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the single obvious parameter.

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 single required parameter site_id is never mentioned in the description, so there is no guidance on its format or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_sites). The parameter's meaning is inferable from the tool purpose, but the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a site from the user's account') and clarifies the scope of removal, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling connect_site. An agent can tell immediately what this does and what it does not touch.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Confirm with the user before calling') and an explicit exclusion ('Demo sites cannot be removed'), which is more than most mutation tools offer. It stops short of naming connect_site as the inverse operation or pointing to list_sites as the way to obtain a site_id.

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