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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the non-blocking behavior and that the other agent can reconnect, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like whether pending messages are lost or if any cleanup occurs, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. Single sentence, no fluff. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning the token parameter's purpose, but it remains efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete, but it could benefit from clarifying the token parameter and any consequences (e.g., whether the handle becomes invalid). For a connection tool, that adds useful context.

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 50%: 'handle' is described as 'Connected handle', but 'token' has no description in schema or description. The description does not explain token's role (likely auth), nor does it clarify the format of handle. With partial coverage, the baseline is 3 and it does not add much beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('End a connection') and the resource ('connection'), plus the non-blocking behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like 'block_agent' and 'unblock_agent' by implying it is a clean disconnect, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives a brief context ('without blocking') but provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'block_agent' or 'reject_connect'. It does not specify prerequisites like an existing connection, or when it should not be used.

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