git_disconnect

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which already signals this is destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it says 'disconnect' but does not disclose whether connected commits, branches, or history are lost or whether the workspace is changed irreversibly. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no fillers. Every word 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 single-parameter destructive tool, the definition is adequate but thin. Given the destructiveHint annotation, an agent might benefit from knowing what 'disconnect' does to the workspace's Git history, branches, or uncommitted changes before invoking it.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter workspaceId, and the schema itself says 'The workspace ID'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 'Disconnect a workspace from its Git repository' clearly states the verb (disconnect) and resource (workspace and its Git repository). It distinguishes this from git_connect and other git operations, though it doesn't explicitly name the inverse sibling.

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 description implies the tool is for severing the Git integration of a workspace, and the sibling context shows git_connect as the opposite. However, it doesn't state when to use it versus other git tools, nor any preconditions (e.g., workspace must be connected).

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