disconnect_from_sibelius

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is safe, if it affects open files, or if it requires an active connection. The minimal text carries the full burden but omits essential context.

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 extremely short (three words). While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place beyond stating the obvious. For such a simple tool, it is minimally viable but lacks informative content.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists but unspecified), the description should mention what happens after disconnect (e.g., cleanup, return value). It is too minimal to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is complete. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, baseline is 4. The trivial nature of the tool means no additional parameter info is needed.

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 from Sibelius' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from other disconnect tools like disconnect_from_dorico. It is a tautology but effectively communicates the purpose for a simple connection management tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disconnect_from_dorico or disconnect_from_musescore. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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