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

Discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: stored credentials are removed, the action is immediate with no confirm step, and reconnecting will require the user to re-enter credentials. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects despite sparse 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and add only high-value behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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 zero-parameter disconnect tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, side effect, immediacy, and recovery path. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call or invoke this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The schema coverage is complete, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: disconnect from ServiceNow, with the additional concrete outcome of removing stored credentials. This clearly distinguishes it from connect_servicenow and the servicenow_* incident tools.

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 makes the usage context clear and adds an important warning that the tool runs immediately with no preview or confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific naming and the inverse connect_servicenow sibling make the appropriate use unambiguous.

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