ise_mnt_coa_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. It labels the tool [DESTRUCTIVE], yet describes a GET status operation—this is a confusing behavioral claim. It doesn't explain what 'disconnect' means operationally (does it trigger a CoA disconnect? just report status?), nor the raw XML return implications. The destructive claim conflicts with the apparent read-only nature of a 'Get status' GET call.

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?

Two sentences, tight and front-loaded with the [DESTRUCTIVE] [CoA] tags. However, the '[DESTRUCTIVE]' tag is potentially misleading for a GET, and the 'Returns raw XML' note is useful. No wasted words, but the content could be more informative.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description (raw XML note + tags) is thin. It doesn't clarify the destructive semantics, what the status response contains, or how it differs from ise_mnt_coa_reauth. The params are documented but the tool's actual behavior—why a GET would be destructive—remains unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description (though 'Path parameter X' adds minimal value). The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The confirm/deployment params have useful schema annotations, but the description contributes nothing. Baseline 3 applies since 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?

Description states it 'Get[s] CoA disconnect status' with the HTTP path. However, it's labeled [DESTRUCTIVE], which is odd for a status/read operation—the verb is clear (get status) but the destructive tagging creates confusion about its true nature. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like ise_mnt_coa_reauth.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The [CoA] tag hints at the domain but there's no exclusions or comparison to ise_mnt_coa_reauth or the session query tools. A 'when to use' statement is absent.

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