flow_disconnect

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

The description discloses the primary effects (closing browser and cleaning up connection), but with no annotations, it does not cover prerequisites, idempotency, or consequences for existing sessions. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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?

A single, direct sentence that states the purpose without any filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple zero-parameter teardown tool, covering its main effect. However, it could have mentioned that it reverses flow_connect or is safe to call when already disconnected, making it slightly incomplete.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed; baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 tool's action: closing the browser and cleaning up the MCP connection to Google Flow. This distinguishes it from siblings like flow_connect, which is presumably the setup counterpart.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The sibling context implies it is the teardown counterpart to flow_connect, but the description does not state this relationship or provide usage scenarios.

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