desktop_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the session is lazily re-established on the next tool call, which is the key operational consequence of calling it. It does not, however, mention any auth or state-teardown caveats beyond that.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless session-teardown tool with an output schema and supporting annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the reconnect behavior. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on whether other in-flight tools are affected would have made it fully complete.

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 information is required 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 ('Release') and resource ('this bridge's Pi desktop session'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools (status, health, screenshot, click, etc.), none of which tear down a session.

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 meaningful context for choosing this tool: the disconnect is safe because 'the MCP server can reconnect on the next tool call.' This tells the agent it can drop the session without permanent loss, but it does not state when an agent should prefer disconnecting versus simply leaving the session open.

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