qc_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects (closing the session, clearing server cache), the important auto-reconnect behavior when OAuth Client ID is used, and explicitly states that other applications like AgroClimate are unaffected.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage scenarios and then the critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the important reconnect warning is clearly marked with 'IMPORTANTE'.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, its side effects, and an important edge case about OAuth reconnection. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and set proper user expectations.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is strong, and the extra context about OAuth configuration is helpful rather than required.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it closes the active QualityControl session and cleans the server cache. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qc_connect and qc_healthcheck by making the disconnect/cleanup function explicit.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: to refresh the connection, clean cached data, or restart the QualityControl context. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use: to switch companies or fully log out, the user must edit the connector settings, not call this tool.

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