etabs_disconnect

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial scope clarification that disconnecting does NOT exit ETABS by default, which meaningfully narrows the apparent blast radius. It does not disclose what happens to unsaved model state on plain disconnect or whether an active session is required, but the added context exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the one behavioral caveat that matters. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the essential default versus close behavior. It leaves minor gaps around session-state requirements and interaction with the save/confirm parameters, but is sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so save and confirm are already fully documented in the schema, and the description only echoes close_etabs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax or default details beyond the structured fields.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Release the ETABS connection') that is unmistakably the inverse of the sibling etabs_connect, so an agent can select it without opening either schema. It stops short of naming or contrasting with siblings explicitly, keeping it below 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?

Implicit usage is clear (call it to tear down a session), and the note that ETABS keeps running unless close_etabs is true gives a condition for the more aggressive variant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., pending jobs) or the counterpart etabs_connect.

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