imap_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only the action itself and does not clarify whether disconnecting preserves the stored account, whether it fails if no connection exists, or whether it is idempotent. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing 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 a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly names the target resource.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and the required input. However, without annotations, output schema, or any note about the connection lifecycle, an agent has no information about expected outcomes or failure conditions, so the definition is not fully complete.

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 input schema already documents accountId with 100% coverage, and the description merely echoes the same meaning without adding format, source, or lifecycle details. The schema handles the heavy lifting, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disconnect') and a clear resource ('IMAP account'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling operations like imap_connect and imap_remove_account. An agent can tell exactly what action is being performed.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imap_remove_account or imap_connect. There is no mention of prerequisites like requiring an active connection, nor any exclusion of cases where removal or reconnection would be more appropriate.

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