Integrations: disable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say whether disabling is reversible, whether in-flight workflows or credentials are affected, or what permissions are required. With the lower bar set by annotations, a description that contributes zero extra behavioral context earns a low score.

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 words are perfectly front-loaded and free of filler, but for a state-mutating tool this brevity crosses from concise into under-specified. The structure is clean; the size is arguably too small to carry the tool's weight.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of effects, so the description carries the burden of explaining consequences. It omits what disabling actually does, whether it can be undone, and how it differs from disconnect, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a non-read operation.

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?

There is a single parameter, connection_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('disable') and resource ('a connection'), so the action is unambiguous at a glance. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as integrations_enable, integrations_disconnect, or integrations_connect, and it uses 'connection' where the tool name uses 'integrations'.

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 guidance on when to disable versus when to use integrations_disconnect or integrations_enable, both of which sit in the same sibling set. The agent is left to infer the distinction with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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