Отключение сетевого диска от сервиса

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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful behavioral context: the drive must be disconnected before deletion, implying a prerequisite step. It does not disclose error conditions or reversibility, but overall it adds value beyond the structured annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a key usage note. No wasted words; every sentence 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action, the target, and a critical prerequisite (before deletion). It doesn't cover edge cases like 'what if already unmounted', but the low complexity justifies a high score.

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%: the only parameter (network_drive_id) is already described as required UUID in the schema. The description does not add any further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 exactly what the tool does: disconnects a network drive from the service/server it was connected to. This is a specific verb+resource pairing, and it implicitly distinguishes from delete_network_drive by noting the drive must be disconnected before deletion.

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 provides clear context: it is used for disconnecting a drive before deletion. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the 'before deleting' note clarifies when this action is needed versus deletion. It lacks explicit exclusions but is sufficient for the simple use case.

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