proton_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose the side effect: the stored Bridge password for that account is removed from Windows (credential store). That is real behavioral context beyond the name. It is truncated, though, and does not say whether the action is reversible or what happens if the account is not connected.

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 focused sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing ellipsis/truncation leaves it feeling incomplete rather than verbose.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what is removed and where it is stored. Missing only edge-case behavior (not-connected state, reversibility, multi-account selection), which is minor at this complexity.

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 by the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds the useful nuance that the operation targets 'one' account and touches the stored Bridge credential, but there is no parameter surface to document.

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?

Specific verb ('Disconnects') plus a specific resource ('one Proton Mail account from Local MCP'), which readily distinguishes it from proton_connect and from other disconnect_* siblings. It stops short of naming the related tools, keeping it at a clear-but-not-differentiating 4.

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 states what the tool does but never says when to reach for it, whether an account must first be connected, or how 'one' account is selected when multiple Proton accounts exist. No alternatives (e.g., other disconnect_* tools) are referenced, so usage must be inferred.

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