ods_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering repeated-call and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the target ('ODS server') and does not disclose extra behavioral nuances such as whether an active connection is required or how pending queries are affected, but for a zero-parameter disconnect this is acceptable.

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 five words in one clear sentence with no filler. It places the action and object up front and earns its place entirely.

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, annotation-covered lifecycle tool with an output schema, the description is essentially complete. The sibling list already provides the connection context, though the description could explicitly mention that this is the cleanup counterpart to ods_connect.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The 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 states the exact action ('Close') and resource ('connection to ODS server'), making the tool's function immediately unambiguous. It is also clearly distinguished from siblings like ods_connect, ods_connect_using_env, and ods_get_connection_info.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned, but as a connection-lifecycle tool it is clearly meant to pair with the connect tools. The description leaves the intended timing ('after connection work is done') to inference rather than stating it.

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