disconnect

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the close waits for the in-flight MSP request rather than aborting it, which tells the agent this is a graceful teardown and safe to call at any point.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably terse, but every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 no-argument, no-output-schema teardown tool whose annotations already convey safety and read/write semantics, the description covers what the agent needs: what it closes, when it takes effect, and that it is safe. Only minor context (e.g. what happens to subsequent calls) is absent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description needs to explain parameter meaning, and no parameter-related gaps exist.

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 and resource: closing the serial connection to the flight controller. That is unambiguous and implicitly the inverse of the sibling 'connect'. It stops short of explicitly naming 'connect' as the counterpart, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in the strongest sense.

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 parenthetical '(après la requête MSP en cours)' gives useful timing context, implying this should be called when serial work is finished. However, it never says when to reach for this versus alternatives (e.g. when to disconnect before reconnecting, or relative to 'connect'/'list_serial_ports'), so usage is only implied.

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