probe_disconnect

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful context by stating the operation can target a single connection or all connections, and that the id comes from probe_connect. It does not go deeper into failure modes, but that is acceptable for this simple tool.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that conveys both modes of operation without extra words. It is immediately readable and front-loaded with the core action.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description fully covers the essential usage semantics. It competently supports the agent in selecting and invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%: the id parameter's meaning and omission behavior are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('connection'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining it closes connections opened by probe_connect. The optional-id behavior is explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear conditional usage: include an id to close one connection, omit it to close all. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context (probe_connect) makes the intended pairing obvious.

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