micropython_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a genuinely useful edge case: it returns success even when not already connected, which signals effectively idempotent behavior. It also lists the return fields. It stops short of saying what happens to board state or whether an active connection is required.

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 core action and the key edge-case caveat are front-loaded in two short lines, followed by a compact return-value block. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 zero-parameter action with an output schema covering return values, the description is essentially complete: what it does, its behavior when disconnected, and its returns. It could add one note on the effect on board/session state, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (disconnect) and resource (current MicroPython board connection), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling micropython_connect. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb is unambiguous and scoped to the active connection.

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 only implied by the verb – an agent can infer this is how you close a session, but there is no explicit 'use when/when-not' guidance or reference to alternatives such as micropython_connection_status to check state first. The one conditional statement concerns behavior, not when to call it.

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