disconnect_from_mechanical

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that shutdown sends a forced exit request that loses unsaved work, that the session may restart or linger, and that the confirmation argument is a hard refusal gate requiring an exact string. Missing is any statement about what plain disconnect does to the underlying connection or whether it is reversible.

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 key fact (Mechanical keeps running) is front-loaded and every clause carries information. The 'Args:' block is somewhat dense and run-on with nested parentheticals, which slightly slows parsing but does not waste words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter, zero-required session teardown tool, the destructive branch is fully covered. The remaining gap is the semantics of the non-shutdown path, which is left to be inferred from the name.

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 0%, so the description must supply all meaning, and it does: shutdown is explained as a forced exit with data-loss consequences, and confirm is defined with the literal required value 'SHUT DOWN MECHANICAL'. The schema only supplies bare type/title/default; the description supplies the operational contract.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and object ('Disconnect, leaving Mechanical running') and clarifies the post-state of the server, so the agent knows the session ends but the application persists. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from connect_to_mechanical or other session tools, 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?

It provides an explicit when-not for the risky path: if the session is Workbench-owned, 'normally close it from Workbench instead' because it may restart or linger. Guidance for the default behavior (disconnect without shutdown) is only implied, and there is no statement of when to disconnect at all versus staying connected.

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