pt_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully confirms that what is destroyed is a cable between endpoints. It says nothing about reversibility, what happens to the link state on both devices, or behavior with an unknown port, which would be the value-add for a destructive mutation.

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?

One sentence with the operation front-loaded and the example inline; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but structure and sizing are sound.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. Missing are the one-vs-both-endpoint rule and failure behavior on invalid ports, both of which an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and the example does teach the "device:interface" string format that the bare string-array schema omits. However, it never says whether one endpoint or both ends of the link must be listed, which is the single most consequential ambiguity for this call.

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 and resource ("Remove cables by endpoint") and the example makes clear it operates on links between device interfaces. It is implicitly distinguishable from pt_connect, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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: an agent infers this is for tearing down existing links, with pt_connect as the obvious counterpart. There is no explicit when/when-not statement, no prerequisite about devices being stopped, and no guidance on erroring on nonexistent links.

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