network_disconnect

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds that the container keeps running and only the endpoint is removed. It also explains the force behavior. This provides adequate behavioral context beyond the 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 concise, well-structured with a clear first sentence, behavioral explanation, and argument list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return type (bool). Given the existence of an output schema, it does not need to explain return values further. It could mention error conditions but is otherwise complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only minimally adds meaning. It restates parameter names ('id_or_name - The network id or name', 'container - The container id or name to disconnect') and explains force. The non-force parameters receive no additional semantic detail.

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 states 'Disconnect a container from a network' with a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_connect and network_remove by explaining it is the reverse of connect and a prerequisite for remove.

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 advises using disconnect before network_remove because a network with connected containers cannot be deleted. It also mentions force for clearing stale endpoints. However, it could explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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