Integrations: disconnect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that structured data: no statement of reversibility, no indication of what is torn down (credentials, tokens, history), and no auth requirements.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the action, which is good. But at three words it reads as under-specification rather than earned conciseness; there was room for a clause identifying the target and any caveats without bloat.

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, no-undo tool with no output schema, the description leaves out anything an agent needs beyond the bare action: irreversibility, side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. Annotations carry the safety hint, but the description is too thin to be complete.

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 exactly one parameter (connection_id) with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents its meaning. The description adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

The description states a verb (delete) and resource (connection), so the core action is legible. However, it is only three words, and the operation is named 'disconnect' in both the tool name and title while the description says 'delete', leaving mild ambiguity about whether the connection is permanently removed or merely unlinked. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like integrations_disable.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives. Given a dense sibling set (integrations_connect, integrations_disable, integrations_connections_list), the description should indicate when disconnecting/deleting a connection is the right call versus disabling it. Nothing is offered.

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