sros_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the named session does not exist, or whether an active subscription is terminated—material details for a session-teardown tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is lean rather than verbose; the only cost is that the brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 teardown with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. With no annotations and no statement of error or idempotency behavior, an agent still lacks enough to know how failure cases behave.

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 100% with a single, self-documented 'name' parameter ('Session name to disconnect'). The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Close') and resource ('gNMI session to a Nokia SR OS device'), which is clear enough to distinguish from sros_connect. However, it never names the sibling it pairs with or contrasts against, so sibling differentiation is left to inference from the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the alternatives (e.g., sros_connect, sros_list_sessions), nor any prerequisite such as an existing session. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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