bridge_disconnect

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully clarifies that the underlying instance is unaffected by the detach. It says nothing about session-side effects (whether the connection is re-establishable, whether any local state is lost, or required auth), leaving gaps for a mutation of connection state.

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?

A single short sentence with the key behavioral constraint ('keeps running') front-loaded immediately after the action. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential distinction from bridge_stop. A pointer to bridge_connect for reattaching would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. No parameter information is needed in the description.

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 ('Detach') and resource ('the instance'), and the clause 'it keeps running' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling bridge_stop, which presumably terminates the instance. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'it keeps running' implies when to prefer this over bridge_stop, but the description never states that alternative or any precondition (e.g., must be connected first). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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