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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds consequences that annotations cannot convey: no tool can reach the device afterward until the user manually runs the `npx @wonderwhy-er/desktop-commander@latest remote` command, plus the clarification that the computer itself is not shut down. That recovery path is critical behavioral context for a destructive action.

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?

Four tightly scoped sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the gating condition. No filler, though the negative-usage and recovery sentences could be marginally tightened; nothing is wasted as-is.

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 destructive, non-openWorld tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the exact effect, the trigger condition, the exclusions, the post-condition lockout, the manual recovery step, and the scope limit (does not power off the machine).

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 coverage is 100% and the deviceId description already explains sourcing from list_devices and the single-device omission case, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable here but not above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — disconnecting a device from remote access by stopping its Desktop Commander remote agent — which is far more precise than the bare name 'shutdown' would suggest. It explicitly disambiguates from process-termination siblings, so an agent will not confuse this with killing a command or task.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ('only when the user explicitly asks to disconnect this device or stop remote access') and an explicit negative one, naming the alternatives force_terminate and kill_process for the confusable case. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that earns a top score.

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