Disconnect user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Destructive' merely restates them. The endpoint path adds modest context (this is a DELETE on a Teams user), but it says nothing about whether the underlying SIP user is deleted or merely unlinked, or whether the action is reversible.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the route and safety note. No wasted text, though terseness edges into under-specification.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile and the schema covers both parameters, so the essentials are present. Still, for a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description omits what state change actually occurs (unlink integration vs delete the SIP user) and what the response confirms.

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 schema documents both sip_user_id and response_format with an enum, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's endpoint path shows sip_user_id is a path parameter but adds nothing about its semantics or the format parameter's effect.

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 verb 'disconnect' plus the endpoint path (DELETE /microsoft_teams/users/{sip_user_id}) identifies the resource as a Microsoft Teams user in Placitel's integration, which is clearer than the bare title. However, 'Disconnect user' alone is vague and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like placetel_import_microsoft_teams_user, placetel_sync_microsoft_teams_user, or placetel_delete_webex_user.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling import/sync/list Microsoft Teams tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that 'disconnect' removes a Teams user's integration from context alone.

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