thunderbird_disconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one concrete consequence: the stored password is removed. However, it stops there — it does not say whether other accounts are untouched, whether the account remains listed, whether the removal is reversible, or whether reconnecting is required afterward.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action, which is good. But the text is visibly truncated ("for it fro..."), so the definition is incomplete rather than merely concise — a structural defect, not brevity.

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 credential-affecting teardown tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state the full effect and any prerequisites. Instead it is truncated and leaves the agent unsure which account is affected, what state remains afterward, and what to do next.

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 schema has zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4. But the description speaks of acting on "one Thunderbird account," implying an account selector that the empty schema does not expose, so the description and schema are out of step. No format or identification guidance compensates for that implied but absent parameter.

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 stops Local MCP from sending via one Thunderbird account and removes the stored password. That distinguishes it from thunderbird_connect and the read/send siblings without needing the schema. It loses a point only because the sentence is cut off mid-thought ("for it fro..."), leaving the scope statement incomplete.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. thunderbird_connect to re-establish). The agent must infer that this is the teardown counterpart to thunderbird_connect. Nothing tells it what happens if called when no account is connected.

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