trmnl_disconnect_plugin_settings_connection

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: only the single targeted provider grant is removed, not all grants for the plugin setting. It adds nothing about required permissions, reversibility (must the connection be re-established via start_*?), or what the response contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, which is good. But 'Changes remote state or starts work' is generic boilerplate that adds nothing, and concatenating the raw HTTP route without a sentence structure makes the block read like stitched-together fragments.

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, non-read-only mutation with nested required parameters and no output schema, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: what the required revision token is for (stale-revision failure mode) and what breaks downstream when the grant is dropped (does the plugin setting stop ingesting data?).

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 33% — only the 'profile' parameter is documented in the schema. The description does not explain the required body.revision string (apparently an optimistic-concurrency/version token) or the plugin_setting_id vs connection_id path pairing, which is the main source of invocation error for a nested path object.

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+resource: disconnect a plugin-setting connection, plus the concrete endpoint DELETE /api/plugin_settings/{plugin_setting_id}/connections/{connection_id}. The phrase 'only this target provider grant' scopes it against a broader teardown, though it never names the sibling (start_plugin_settings_connection / disconnect_plugin_installations_connection) that an agent could confuse it with.

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?

'Run only within the user-authorized scope' is an authorization caution, not a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when to disconnect versus start a new connection, cancel a connection attempt, or disconnect a plugin *installation* connection — the closest siblings.

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