disconnect_device

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating action (readOnlyHint=false) and external world impact (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the scope limitation regarding USB devices but does not disclose side effects like connection loss or reversibility. This meets the lower bar set by annotations but adds only limited extra behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's scope and effect. It could mention post-conditions, but the core behavior is clear enough.

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 fully covers the single parameter 'target' with a description ('Connected host:port target'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Disconnect' and the resource 'ADB-over-TCP target', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like connect_device or clear_active_device. It also clarifies what it does not affect (USB devices), adding useful differentiation.

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 for ADB-over-TCP targets and explicitly excludes USB devices. This gives a clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not scenarios beyond the USB caveat.

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