usbtmc_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds return value details (success flag, disconnected device_id, product name, message) but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as failure modes or whether the connection becomes unusable. No contradictions 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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It is reasonably concise, with each statement providing useful information. Minor redundancy exists with the schema description, but the format is effective.

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 disconnect operation with one parameter, the description covers the input meaning, return values, and success/error messaging. It lacks explicit preconditions or edge-case behavior, but given the annotations and the parameter hint about usbtmc_connect(), it is sufficiently 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?

The description explicitly documents the required parameter device_id, explaining it as the unique identifier returned by usbtmc_connect(). It also describes the return structure, which clarifies the parameter's effect. Even though the schema also has a description, the signal indicates low schema coverage, and this description compensates well.

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 the action (Disconnect) and resource (specific USBTMC device), making its purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings beyond the verb, but the scope is clear and specific.

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 parameter description says the device_id is returned by usbtmc_connect(), which implies the tool is used after a connection is established. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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