disconnect_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The description labels the action as 'Disconnect', implying a destructive or state-changing operation. However, it does not specify whether the action is reversible, what consequences it has (e.g., data loss, deactivation of features), or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 of five words, achieving maximum conciseness. It immediately conveys the core action and resource with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded. It is a model of brevity.

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 that the tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., that disconnecting removes the integration's data access) or any side effects. An AI agent would miss important behavioral cues for safe invocation. The description feels incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (workspace_id and platform) fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate even without extra parameter info. The description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 'Disconnect a social platform integration', which clearly identifies the action and resource. The verb 'disconnect' and resource 'social platform integration' are specific. However, it does not mention the workspace context, which is essential since the schema includes a workspace_id parameter. The purpose is clear but could be more precise by including the workspace.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the integration must already be connected) or when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_integrations or sync_linkedin offer related functionality, but no comparison is provided. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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