disconnect_openvpn_client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to re-establish destructiveness. It adds the useful context that the client session will be terminated, but it does not mention whether this is reversible, whether confirmation is required (though the confirm parameter exists), or any side effects on other connections. The warning somewhat repeats the annotation without adding substantial new behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and target. The warning is directly relevant and earns its place. No wasteful or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of a destructive annotation, and a complete input schema that documents all parameters, the description is sufficient for safe operation. It could mention that confirm=true is required, but the schema already communicates this. The output schema presence means return values need not be described. The description covers the essential risk (session termination) in a straightforward way.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (confirm, dry_run, connection_id) already has a defining description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full coverage. Baseline 3 is 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 ('Disconnect') and resource ('OpenVPN client connection'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete (which removes config) or update (which modifies settings). It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 actively connected OpenVPN clients but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., disabling the client, deleting the client, or stopping the OpenVPN service). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, though the context of disconnecting a live session is clear enough for basic guidance.

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