disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the connection pool is released, that subsequent query/execute calls will fail until connect is invoked, and that the operation is idempotent and safe when already disconnected. It does not state the return/confirmation value, though no output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by the consequence and the idempotency note. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effect on the connection pool, the required follow-up (connect), and the no-op case. Only the observable result of a successful call is left unstated, which is minor.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('主动断开当前数据库连接并释放连接池'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling connect tool by naming it as the required follow-up action. An agent can tell immediately this tears down a connection rather than establishing or inspecting one.

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?

Provides clear sequencing guidance: after disconnect, call connect again before query/execute. It also covers the edge case of calling while already disconnected. It does not spell out when an agent should prefer to keep a connection open versus close it, but the operative context is well covered.

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