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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavior: it releases held inputs first and is a safe no-op if no controller is attached, which clarifies the idempotent safety. It omits auth/error behavior, but adds solid context beyond 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter disconnect tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, cleanup behavior, and the no-controller edge case. It is close to complete, though it could explicitly route agents away from status-query siblings.

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%, so the only parameter (udid) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or format detail for udid; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Detach) and resource (virtual game controller) plus platform (Android device), clearly distinguishing it from the iOS sibling and from device_gamepad_state/status. The 'as if unplugging it' analogy reinforces the operation.

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 cleanup use case and notes it is safe when no controller is attached, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over device_gamepad_status or device_gamepad_state, nor does it give prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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