disable_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It merely states 'Disable' without explaining what disabling entails (e.g., reversibility, impact on active integrations, required permissions). This is insufficient 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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks detail to be maximally useful. It is not overly verbose, but brevity sacrifices informative value.

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?

Given the large number of sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context to distinguish behavior or understand effects. There is no output schema, and no mention of what happens after disabling or how to undo. The description is too minimal for the complexity of the tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, with the one parameter ('inboundId') having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but meets the baseline expectation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Disable' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a Bluematador integration'. It distinguishes from related tools like 'enable_integration' and 'delete_integration' by indicating the action, but does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_integration' or 'enable_integration'. No context is provided about prerequisites, side effects, or appropriate scenarios.

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