Disconnect Mechanical

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds context beyond this by explaining the two modes (detach vs. close an MCP-launched instance), which clarifies the tool's scope. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, exactly the right amount of information for a simple tool.

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 a simple one-parameter tool, an output schema, and complete parameter descriptions, the description fully covers the necessary context. It clarifies the two distinct behaviors without needing to explain return values.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter shutdown_attached is well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Detach', 'close') and the resource ('Mechanical', 'MCP-launched instance'). It directly states the tool's purpose of ending a session, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mechanical_launch or mechanical_status.

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 clear context for use: when you want to disconnect from or close a Mechanical instance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the action is evident and appropriately scoped for an exit tool.

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