tracecat_disconnect_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (token revocation, config preserved, reconnectable). However, it lacks details on required permissions, side effects (e.g., immediate loss of access), or whether the token revocation is reversible. More transparency about the process and consequences is needed.

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 concise sentence that conveys the essential information without any waste. Every word is meaningful, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 the simple input (one required string) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and outcome. It covers the key aspects: what is revoked and what is preserved. However, it could mention that the action requires appropriate permissions or that it is irreversible via the tool itself, but overall it is adequate for the complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'provider_id' has a schema description 'Provider ID', and the tool description does not add extra meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. No additional parameter semantics are provided in the description.

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 clearly states the tool revokes OAuth tokens for an integration while preserving its configuration. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tracecat_delete_integration' (which presumably deletes the entire integration) and 'tracecat_test_integration' (which tests). The verb 'revoke' and resource 'integration's OAuth tokens' are specific.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you want to disconnect an integration but keep its configuration for later reconnection via UI. It does not explicitly exclude other cases or reference alternatives, but the context from siblings provides differentiation. A clear when-not usage would push this to 5.

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