Disconnect ZeroHrs

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary—this is local to this MCP and has no effect on other ZeroHrs sessions—which is not evident from the annotations or schema.

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 short sentences carry all the necessary information, with the primary action front-loaded and the scope clarification immediately following. 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 parameterless, outputless disconnect operation, the description plus annotations fully cover purpose, safety, and scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The no-parameter baseline applies here.

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 and resource ('Remove the session saved by this local MCP') and explicitly distinguishes the tool's scope from other ZeroHrs sessions, matching the title's intent and differentiating it from broader logout tools.

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 clearly states the operation's boundary ('does not revoke or sign out other ZeroHrs sessions'), so an agent knows this is for local disconnection only. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool like login, but the exclusions make the appropriate context clear.

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