flow_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 for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool will close the browser and clean up the MCP connection, which is sufficiently transparent about its side effects. It could mention potential data loss risks, but for a disconnect tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core action. It could benefit from mentioning that this is the reverse of flow_connect, but the sibling names provide that context implicitly.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the tool does overall. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description delivers clear context.

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 tool's action: 'Close the browser and clean up the MCP connection to Google Flow.' It specifies the verb 'close' and the resource (browser and connection). Among siblings, flow_connect is the obvious counterpart, so it's well-distinguished.

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 implies usage as the complement to flow_connect but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The context signals show a sibling flow_connect, which gives some implicit context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidelines.

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