mdb_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it tears down only connections established via mdb_connect and leaves config-based connections intact. It omits secondary traits such as idempotency, behavior when no connection exists, and any effect on in-flight queries.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded ahead of the scoping caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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, single-action tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand its blast radius. Only minor gaps remain (return value, no-op behavior) that an agent could reasonably infer.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter-related detail is needed or missing.

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 (Close) plus a precisely scoped resource (the active dynamic connection set created via mdb_connect), and it names the counterpart tool so an agent can pair the two. The dynamic-vs-config distinction further separates its scope from anything else in the mdb_* family.

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 reference to mdb_connect gives clear context for when this applies, and 'Config-based connections are unaffected' effectively tells the agent when calling it is pointless. There is no explicit 'when to call / when not to call' statement or mention of what happens if no dynamic connection is active.

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