Integrations: disable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what actually stops (integrations_execute and workflow steps), and crucially that stored credentials survive, making the action reversible via integrations_enable. It does not mention permission requirements or error cases, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 tightly-packed sentences with zero filler. The core action leads, the effect on dependent tools follows, and the disambiguation against the sibling comes last where an undecided agent will look.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description needn't explain return values for a state toggle, and annotations carry the safety hints. Between the reversibility note, the sibling disambiguation, and the schema's ID lookup pointer, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including how to find the ID via integrations_connections_list. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail about connection_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (disable) and resource (connection) and immediately differentiates itself from two closely-named siblings: integrations_enable (the reverse) and integrations_disconnect (the harder alternative). An agent can pick between the three without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (integrations_disconnect) and the condition that selects this tool over it: 'Prefer this to integrations_disconnect when the pause may be temporary.' The when-to-use-vs-alternative decision is fully closed out.

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