catia_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations cannot express: the session-level effect is a disconnect, not a document/session teardown, which reassures the agent that open documents survive.

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?

One short sentence with zero waste; the most load-bearing fact (does not close CATIA) is bolted directly onto the verb rather than buried.

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, side-effecting session tool this is essentially complete: the scope boundary is stated and annotations cover idempotency and safety. No output schema exists, so there are no return values to explain.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No param guidance is missing or needed.

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 (disconnect) and resource (CATIA V5 session), and immediately distinguishes itself from the closing siblings by clarifying it does not close CATIA. An agent can tell this apart from catia_close_document or catia_close_all without opening any schema.

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 scoping note ('does not close CATIA') implicitly tells the agent when to reach for this rather than a close tool, which is the main ambiguity in this sibling set. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use statement, but the contrast with the close family is clear.

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