table_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying scope: only this client's connection is dropped, and the shared table stays alive for other clients. It does not cover behavior when no connection exists or whether local unsaved state is affected.

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 waste. The primary action is front-loaded and the scope qualifier follows immediately, which is the right order for an agent scanning definitions.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, explicit annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the action, its scope, and the fact that the shared table survives. Nothing necessary to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries the key note 'Omit to use the active connected table.' The description says nothing about table_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Disconnect this MCP client from a table.' The verb+resource pair is unmistakable and clearly sits opposite table_connect/table_reconnect. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than spelled out.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: you call it when you want to leave a table. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer table_reconnect (e.g., switching tables), nor any mention of preconditions such as whether a connection must exist first. The agent must infer the boundary cases.

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