db-oauth-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it revokes the access token, clears cached credentials, and requires re-authentication for subsequent calls. It doesn't mention potential side effects like data loss or timeouts, but covers the essential destructive nature.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by specific effects, in three concise sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds critical information about the tool's behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose and consequences. It could briefly mention if this affects all users or just the current session, but it covers the key operational impact.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's effect rather than inputs, meeting the baseline for parameter-less tools.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Disconnect from all database connections') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like connection_status, list_connections, list_schema, and query_database by focusing on termination rather than status checking or data operations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('The next tool call will require re-authentication'), providing clear context about its consequences and distinguishing it from alternatives that maintain connections.

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