Disconnect Database

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

While annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds valuable context by stating that the connection pool is released and that calling it when not connected is safe, providing behavioral guarantees beyond the annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences convey the action, the resource affected, and the safety guarantee, with every phrase earning its place.

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 no-parameter, idempotent disconnect tool, the description fully covers behavior, safety, and side effects. The output schema handles return values, and no further context is needed.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description has no parameter details to add, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb ('Closes') and explicitly names the resources affected ('current database connection', 'connection pool'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like mssql_connect_database and mssql_connection_status.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to end the connection) and includes safety guidance ('Safe to call even if not connected'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would improve differentiation.

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