Close a standalone instance

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

This is the description's real contribution: it discloses that closing is a plain disconnect, except for instances this server launched, where it also terminates the CarMaker process. That conditional destruction detail goes beyond the destructiveHint=false/readOnlyHint=false annotations. It stops short of describing irreversibility, error behavior, or state loss, so not a full 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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately qualified by the conditional behavior. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the lock/open-world/destructive profile, the description supplies the one missing nuance (conditional process kill). It could still mention what happens to instance state or the omitted-parameter case, but it is close to complete.

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% and the single 'instance' parameter is fully documented there, including the 'may be omitted while there is only one' note. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 title and description state a specific verb ('disconnect'/'close') on a specific resource (a standalone instance), and the text distinguishes two modes of closing. It doesn't name any sibling (e.g., cm_standalone_attach or cm_standalone_launch) to sharpen the distinction, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name/title; the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points at alternatives among the many cm_standalone_* siblings. Adequate for an obvious lifecycle operation, but nothing is added beyond the tool name.

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