disconnect_wifi

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, which is the opposite of what one might expect for a disconnect (it implies repeated calls are benign). The description doesn't clarify whether disconnecting an already-disconnected device is harmless or errors. With annotations covering idempotency, a partial credit is reasonable, but the description adds nothing beyond the annotation layer.

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 appropriately concise — a single clear sentence that states the purpose without waste. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could have used the space to add a usage note.

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 one simple parameter (100% schema coverage) and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details like whether the connection is confirmed, error handling behavior, and whether it's tied to session state. For a simple disconnection tool, this is minimal viable but not rich.

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% — the address parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example format (e.g., 192.168.1.100:5555). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource: 'Disconnect from a wireless ADB device'. It's specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like connect_wifi, though the pairing is fairly self-evident given the names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain that this pairs with connect_wifi, doesn't mention whether this is needed before ending a session, and gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., must be connected first) or error states.

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