Disconnect Database

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether disconnection is reversible, if it affects active queries, permissions required, or error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Disconnect from a database') and adds necessary specificity ('using connection ID'), making it appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what happens after disconnection (e.g., success/failure response, side effects), error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'connectionID' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it uses a connection ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Disconnect from') and resource ('a database'), specifying it uses a connection ID. It distinguishes from 'disconnect_all' by focusing on a single connection, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'list_connections' or 'run_query' beyond the obvious action difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be connected first), when to prefer 'disconnect_all', or how it relates to 'connect_database' or other siblings. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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