edgegate_disconnect_qaihub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses permanence ('Permanently delete'), the side effect on future runs ('fail with NO_AIHUB_TOKEN'), and the required role ('Requires owner role'). This gives the agent a clear behavioral model for a destructive operation.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the primary action ('Permanently delete'), and every sentence adds value: the consequence and the permission requirement are both essential. No filler or redundant wording.

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 and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, side effects, failure mode, and permission requirement. The only minor omission is whether the operation is idempotent or what happens if no integration exists, but that is not critical for selecting and invoking 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any detail about the workspace_id parameter beyond what the schema shows. The description refers to 'the workspace' but doesn't explain how to obtain or format the ID. Since the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, the parameter semantics are weak.

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 clearly states the tool 'Permanently delete the workspace's Qualcomm AI Hub integration', using a specific verb (delete) and resource (Qualcomm AI Hub integration). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edgegate_connect_qaihub and edgegate_get_qaihub_integration by describing a permanent removal action.

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 clearly implies when to use it (when you want to remove the integration) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires owner role') and a consequence ('Any new EdgeGate runs... will then fail with NO_AIHUB_TOKEN until a fresh token is connected'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling names make the alternative actions obvious.

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