artifact_disconnect

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: it closes the local HTTP client and removes the session from active memory. It does not cover failure behavior, idempotency, or auth requirements, but the main side effects are stated.

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 front-loaded and organized into useful headings. There is minor redundancy between purpose, behavior, and side effects, but no wasted prose that impedes understanding.

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 the single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a cleanup tool. It covers purpose, timing, behavior, side effects, and the parameter, leaving only minor operational details unspecified.

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 0%, so the description should add meaning. It identifies session_name as the session to disconnect and repeats the default, but it does not explain how to discover valid session names or what happens if the named session does not exist.

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 and resource: disconnect an active artifact registry session and close HTTP connections. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as artifact_connect or artifact_list_sessions.

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?

It gives explicit usage contexts: when switching environments or finishing a pipeline run. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended situation is clear enough for selection.

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