trmnl_disconnect_plugin_installations_connection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait—'only this target provider grant', implying other grants survive—plus a generic 'Changes remote state' note. It does not disclose that the required revision field likely enforces an optimistic-concurrency precondition, which is meaningful for a destructive call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but two of the three lines are generic boilerplate ('Changes remote state or starts work', 'Run only within the user-authorized scope') that add no tool-specific information and crowd out the details that matter, like revision semantics.

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 a destructive mutation with no output schema and a nested required path object, the definition falls short: an agent knows roughly what happens but not what a revision mismatch does or how to confirm success. Incomplete for safe invocation.

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 only 33%, with just 'profile' documented, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. It echoes the two path IDs via the URL template but says nothing about the required body.revision, whose purpose (concurrency guard/failure mode) is undocumented anywhere in the definition.

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?

It names a specific verb (disconnect) and resource (a plugin installation's connection/provider grant), and the DELETE path confirms it. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling trmnl_disconnect_plugin_settings_connection, leaving an agent to guess which connection type a given grant belongs to.

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 only guidance is the generic 'Run only within the user-authorized scope', which applies to every mutating tool in this server. There is no statement of when to prefer this over trmnl_disconnect_plugin_settings_connection or trmnl_cancel_connection_attempt, and no stated preconditions such as an active connection or a valid revision.

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