disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important behavioral fact: the next tool call will automatically reconnect, so the disconnection is non-permanent and self-healing. It omits edge cases such as what happens if already disconnected or whether other apps' audio is affected, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with zero filler: the action first, then the state-restoration guarantee. Both sentences earn their place and the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema toggle the description covers what an agent needs: the effect, the battery rationale, and the automatic reconnect. Only failure/edge-case behavior is unstated, which is a small residual gap given the tool's simplicity.

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; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource: '主动断开蓝牙连接' (actively disconnect the Bluetooth connection), plus the motivation '省手机电' (save phone battery). No sibling tool in the list touches connectivity, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from the water/todo/habit/countdown tools.

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 a clear condition for use (to save battery), which is concrete guidance. It does not spell out when NOT to use it or name an explicit alternative, but for a global connection toggle there is no sibling alternative to route to, so the gap is minor.

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