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

Annotations already convey destructive and idempotent traits, and the description adds behavioral context beyond them: the end is non-blocking and the other agent may reconnect later. This helps an agent predict the real-world effect of the call without contradicting the 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 carry all essential meaning with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral nuance follows naturally without redundancy.

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 two-parameter action with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description provides sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but those are not critical for this low-complexity operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable for this simple tool.

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 a specific action ('End a connection') and adds a key behavioral qualifier ('without blocking'), which clearly distinguishes this from block_agent and other connection tools. It also clarifies later reconnectability, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 tool is for ending a connection when future reconnection should be possible, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like block_agent or reject_connect. The 'without blocking' phrase gives context but stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion.

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