disconnect_bulb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and scope ('disconnect from the currently active smart bulb') but does not disclose edge-case behavior: what happens if no bulb is active, whether disconnecting affects the bulb's power state, or whether a reconnect is required afterward. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what is needed with zero waste. The action and target are stated in the first words, which is ideal for a simple tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity — 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations — the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only gaps are edge-case expectations (undefined behavior when no bulb is active, effect on bulb power), which are minor for this simple disconnection action.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is trivially 100% covered since there are no parameters to document. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the implicit target ('currently active' bulb), which is the only semantic the agent needs beyond the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('the currently active smart bulb'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_bulb, get_bulb_state, and the set_* family — the action and scope are unambiguous and the qualifier 'currently active' tells the agent exactly which target it acts on.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description conveys this is the counterpart to connect_bulb, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or what precondition is required (e.g., that a bulb must be active). For a simple 0-param tool the context is mostly inferable, but no exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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