mc_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses session scoping (other sessions' bots unaffected) and a watchdog side effect ('看门狗会自动关闭并提醒你'), but that clause is ambiguous about what exactly gets closed. It also omits irreversibility, whether the session record persists, and what reconnecting requires.

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?

Three short clauses with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The final clause about the watchdog is slightly vague in wording but does add information.

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 session-terminating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key side effect (watchdog shutdown plus notification) and blast radius. It still leaves the reason parameter and post-disconnect session state unexplained, so it is adequate rather than 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?

There is one parameter, 'reason', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. Under low coverage the description is expected to compensate, so the unexplained reason field is a clear gap.

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 ('从 MC 下线', bot exits the game) and scopes it to the current session, which implicitly contrasts with mc_connect. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, but the action is 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?

'不影响其他会话的机器人' gives a boundary condition for when this tool is safe to use instead of a broader disconnect. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over alternatives (mc_stop, mc_sessions) and no preconditions or recovery guidance.

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