disconnect_device

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core state change (disconnecting) and the return value (status message), but leaves unspecified what happens if no device is connected or whether auto-reconnect settings could interfere.

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 short sentences lead with the action and then state the return value. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the zero-parameter input and simple action, the description is largely complete and even supplies the return type. It would be more complete with a note about disconnected-state behavior, but that is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage of an empty schema, so no parameter semantics are required. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 identifies the exact resource ('the currently connected Thingy device'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like connect_device and configure_auto_reconnect.

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 'currently connected' states a clear precondition, implying the tool should be used when a connection exists. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but the action is simple and the sibling connect_device naturally establishes the counterpart.

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