Integrations: disconnect

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by disclosing the concrete fallout: stored credentials are removed and dependent workflow steps fail until reconnection. It also adds an authorization/etiquette constraint ('check with the user before running it') that no annotation conveys.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope, followed by the alternative and the safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is destroyed, downstream impact, the safer alternative, and a user-confirmation rule. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter already documents itself and its discovery path ('Find it with integrations_connections_list'). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented params 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a connection') and immediately scopes what is removed (the connection and its stored credentials from the project). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like integrations_disable or integrations_list 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 ('Use integrations_disable to pause it instead') and the remediation path ('connected again with integrations_connect or the OAuth flow'). It states both when to use this and when to prefer a sibling, and adds a pre-flight caution to confirm with the user.

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