disconnect_wireless

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state that pairing is remembered, which is a key side effect. However, it does not clarify the effect of the optional 'device' parameter or behavior with multiple connections, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 remarkably concise: two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every word adds value—'Drop the wireless connection' is direct, and the pairing note is essential context. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool, the description covers the main action and a key behavioral note, and an output schema exists so return values are not needed. However, the complete lack of parameter explanation and ambiguity around multi-device behavior leaves gaps. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'device' with zero description coverage (0%). The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to explain its purpose or how it affects the disconnect action. Since coverage is low, the description was required to compensate and does not, making the parameter semantics completely unexplained.

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 the exact action 'Drop the wireless connection' with a specific resource, and it clearly distinguishes from connect_wireless by noting the pairing is remembered. This differentiates it from sibling tools like pair_wireless and enable_wireless without ambiguity.

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 provides context by mentioning connect_wireless as the reconnection path and notes that pairing is retained, which implies the tool is for temporary disconnects. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other alternatives like pair_wireless, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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