pillar_disconnect

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that the effect is local (the stored wallet address is cleared) rather than an on-chain action, but it doesn't say whether key material is retained, whether funds or positions are unaffected, or whether the disconnect is reversible.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence is a cross-sell tip that adds nothing to invoking this tool correctly and dilutes the useful signal.

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 teardown tool this is a minimal but workable description: it says what is cleared and that it is local. Still missing, and not covered by annotations or an output schema, is what happens to the underlying key, whether reconnection is required afterward, and how it relates to pillar_connect.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level gaps exist.

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 ('Disconnect from Pillar') plus the concrete effect ('Clears locally stored wallet address'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate from nearby siblings like pillar_key_lock, wallet_lock, or wallet_switch, which an agent could easily confuse with disconnecting.

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 never says when to use this versus locking a key (pillar_key_lock) or switching wallets, nor does it state prerequisites or consequences for the session. The only forward reference is a promotional tip to call earning_opportunities, which is unrelated to deciding whether to disconnect.

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