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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds useful context by specifying that the removal is scoped to the current session and targets the cache created by d365fo_set_connection. This goes beyond the structural annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single sentence that names the action, the resource, the scope, and the originating tool. There is no redundancy or filler, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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, session-state-clearing tool with a clear relation to d365fo_set_connection, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. No output schema is present, but none is necessary for this trivial no-input operation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly confirms that the action operates on session state rather than requiring any input, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('removes') and a specific resource ('D365 F&O connection cached for the current session'), and it references the paired tool d365fo_set_connection that created the connection. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from its sibling set_connection.

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 this is used after d365fo_set_connection to clear the connection for the current session. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the pairing with d365fo_set_connection gives sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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