network_disconnect

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the container keeps running, only the endpoint is removed, and force clears stale endpoints. It also implies reversibility by calling it 'the reverse of network_connect'. This is solid behavioral disclosure, though it omits potential error cases or permission requirements.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral note linking to siblings, a structured args list, and a return type. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, side effects, relation to sibling tools, parameter meanings, and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: id_or_name (network id/name), container (container id/name), and force (force disconnect, use for stale endpoints). This gives the agent complete understanding of what each argument does.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Disconnect a container from a network') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting it is the reverse of network_connect and that network_remove requires disconnecting containers first. This makes the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names related tools (network_connect, network_remove) and provides a clear when-to-use context: use it to remove an endpoint while keeping the container running, and before deleting a network. The force parameter is also explained for stale endpoint cleanup, giving practical usage guidance.

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