disconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the browser itself keeps running, a key side effect. However, it does not mention whether the connection can be re-established, whether any session state is lost, or what happens if no connection exists.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds a meaningful clarification about the browser continuing to run, so every part 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the core action and the most important side effect. It is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly, though a brief note about reconnecting via connect_brave would make it more 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. This is the baseline case for a parameterless tool.

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 verb 'Drop' and the resource 'the connection to the browser,' making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool like connect_brave, but the parenthetical clarifies it is not closing the browser, which adds useful scope.

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 usage context is only implied: an agent can infer it should use this tool when it wants to end a browser connection. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose for reconnecting.

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