memory_git_disconnect

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool stops syncing, which aligns with idempotency. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether the connection is fully removed or if it requires additional confirmation, beyond what annotations provide.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly expanded for additional context without harming conciseness.

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 simple disconnection action with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The schema covers parameter selection, so the description is nearly complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (repo and repository_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Disconnect') and the resource ('GitHub repository'), with an additional clause 'stop syncing' that clarifies the effect. Among siblings like memory_git_connect and memory_git_list, this distinguishes itself as the disconnection tool.

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 usage is implied (disconnect when you want to stop syncing), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use versus alternatives like memory_git_deactivate or memory_git_delete. No when-not or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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