beel_disconnect_payment_connection

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

Even though annotations already mark this destructive, the description goes far beyond them: it discloses credential deletion, immediate auto-invoicing halt, ignored incoming charges, unaffected already-issued invoices, and the persistence of provider-side authorization. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the most important action and side effects. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the endpoint line and the detailed provider-dashboard caveat, but every sentence contributes meaningful operational context.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: eligibility, immediate effects, unaffected invoices, provider-side authorization requirements, and error/privacy behavior via the company_id schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

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 schema descriptions are already rich, covering the provider enum, lowercase requirement, company context derivation, and 403 privacy semantics. The main description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating 'stripe' and 'NIF', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (disconnect), a precise target (payment provider connection of a NIF the account owns or manages), and the provider (Stripe). It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like beel_list_payment_connections or beel_initiate_payment_connection by describing its destructive effect.

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 gives clear eligibility context (company must be owned or managed), explains what happens when used, and explicitly notes that provider-side authorization is not revoked, pointing the user to the provider dashboard for that. It does not name sibling alternatives such as the initiate/list payment connection tools, but the usage context is strong enough.

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