disconnect_servicenow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key detail that only credentials on THIS computer are removed, implying no server-side revocation, but it omits reversibility, whether a reconnect is possible or requires re-auth, and whether the action is confirmed/undoable. For a destructive local cleanup operation with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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?

A single clause with zero waste; the effect (credential removal) and its locality are front-loaded immediately after the action. Nothing to trim.

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 0-param, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient, but given no annotations the description should at least note that the ServiceNow tools become unusable until reconnect_servicenow/connect_servicenow is run. That downstream consequence is the one thing an agent needs and 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 takes zero parameters and the description correctly implies a no-argument call, so there is nothing the schema could document that the description must compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disconnects ServiceNow') plus the concrete effect ('removes the credentials stored on this computer'), which clearly separates it from connect_servicenow and the servicenow_* query tools. It stops short of naming the counterpart tool, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to disconnect, no prerequisites (e.g. must be connected first), and no warning that servicenow_list_my_incidents, servicenow_search_incidents and other ServiceNow tools will fail afterwards. The only usage signal is the tool name itself.

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