signal_disconnect

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 usefully discloses that Signal tools stop reading until the user re-enables Signal from LMCP's icon, but the text is truncated and does not cover account scope, data retention, permissions, or response behavior.

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 main action is front-loaded and the sentence is short, but it ends with an incomplete ellipsis and arrow, making the structure feel truncated rather than fully intentional.

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 disconnect tool, the description conveys the key effect and re-enable path, but it is visibly incomplete and omits details an agent might need, such as whether the disconnect is account-wide or immediate.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The empty schema is consistent with the description, and no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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: 'Turns Signal off in Local MCP.' It also explains the immediate effect, distinguishing this from read-oriented Signal tools, though it does not explicitly name signal_connect as the inverse alternative.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus signal_connect or other Signal tools. The only guidance is an implied disable action, with no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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