disconnectCesiumMap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no statement about whether layers/entities created in the session survive, whether the token is invalidated, or whether the call is idempotent, which is the kind of context a lower annotation bar still rewards.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single fragment that spends its few words on a vague category label ('transport') instead of the actionable facts. No sentence earns credit for informing the caller.

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 two-required-parameter mutation-flavored teardown tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description omits the session lifecycle, the credential requirement, and any post-conditions. Only the annotations carry real information, so the definition is not complete enough to call safely without guesswork.

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?

Both parameters (token, sessionId) are required and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden — yet it mentions neither. In particular it never indicates that the UUID token is an authentication/handshake credential tied to the session, which an agent cannot derive from the schema.

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 verb 'disconnect' and the object 'internal map app transport' are stated, and the sibling connectCesiumMap makes the pairing inferable. However, 'transport' is jargon and the description never says what is actually being torn down (a session, a socket, an open scene), so the purpose remains only roughly clear.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this should be called before openCesiumMap/connectCesiumMap, whether it must be paired with a prior connect, or what happens if the session is already closed. The agent is left to infer the lifecycle from the sibling names alone.

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