network_disconnect

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

The annotations only indicate `readOnlyHint: false` and `destructiveHint: false`, which are minimal. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the container remains running with other attachments, only the specified endpoint is removed, networks with connected containers cannot be deleted, and force clears stale endpoints. It also states the return value. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core action, then provides a concise behavioral note, a usage precondition, and a clearly formatted args/returns section. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, preconditions, parameter semantics, and return type (bool). The presence of an output schema for the return value is complemented by the explicit 'returns: bool' line. It is fully self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly documents all three parameters: id_or_name (network id/name), container (container id/name), and force (with its purpose). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and default.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource: 'Disconnect a container from a network.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by defining the exact scope: only the endpoint is removed while the container keeps running. It also references `network_connect` and `network_remove`, making the tool's 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: the description states this is the reverse of `network_connect`, and that it must be used before `network_remove` when a network has connected containers. It also explains when to use `force` (to clear stale endpoints from deleted containers). This gives the agent clear decision rules among related tools.

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