disconnect_realtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting side effects, idempotency, error behavior, permission requirements, or impact on related connections. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous information. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter fully covered by the schema, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., what happens after disconnection) and absence of annotations leaves the context incomplete for an agent to fully understand consequences.

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 input schema fully documents the one parameter (connection_id) with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('disconnects') and resource ('real-time connection'), clearly identifying the action. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_realtime_connection and send_typing_indicator, as it names the inverse operation.

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 implies usage when you want to disconnect a real-time connection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. This is minimal viable guidance.

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