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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Close connections' hints at the side effect, but nothing is said about whether the session/state persists, whether re-login is possible, or what happens to in-progress game actions. For a disruptive disconnect operation this is a substantial gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and a clarifying parenthetical, with no padding. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, which costs it nothing on this dimension.

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?

With no output schema and only a single weak annotation, the description must explain the consequences of disconnecting — session invalidation, re-login requirement, effect on ongoing game state. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict what happens after the call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related content is needed or missing.

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+resource ('Выйти из игры' — leave the game) and adds the concrete mechanism in parentheses ('закрыть соединения' — close connections). This is enough to separate it from game_login, though the terse phrasing and the language mismatch with the English sibling names slow recognition slightly.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., game_leave_building, game_wait) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is a session-termination operation.

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