Neurons Disconnect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is available. The description adds useful context that 'all' is a valid target and that omitting arguments disconnects the caller's only line, but it does not describe the effect of disconnecting or what happens afterward.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. The phrasing 'No arguments: your only line' is slightly compressed and awkward, but overall it remains efficient.

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 one-parameter disconnect tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the action, accepted target values, and default behavior. The main remaining gap is lack of guidance on when to choose this over related communication tools.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does explain that the optional target can be a handle, an agent, or 'all', and that omission targets the caller's only line, but it does not clarify handle formatting or any other constraints.

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 action, 'hang up your line', and identifies possible targets: a handle, an agent, or 'all'. It is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from related communication tools such as send or reply.

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 description implies that this is how you end a line, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings and no when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'No arguments: your only line' explains a default behavior more than it explains tool selection.

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