disconnect_connection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: permanent deletion of credentials, pausing of booking pages, removal of sync rules, best-effort OAuth revocation, irreversibility, and return value details. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, then logically details consequences and return value. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or 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 action with an output schema, the description fully covers the behavioral context: side effects, irreversibility, OAuth revocation nuance, and return value. Nothing important is left unexplained.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description does not explicitly explain the single 'connection_id' parameter. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description's overall context makes clear it identifies the account to disconnect. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Disconnect a calendar account') and clearly enumerates the full scope of the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the cascade of effects on booking pages and sync rules.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool by explaining the irreversible consequences and the affected linked resources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when...', but the context is unambiguous.

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