disconnect

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial value beyond them: RF settings are preserved, front-panel control is restored by default, reconnection is automatic, and server exit closes the port without turning RF off. The only gap is what happens to any in-flight or pending state at disconnect time and what the call returns (no output schema exists).

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: the primary effect first, then the default behavior, then the auto-reconnect consequence, then the server-exit edge case. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive disconnect tool, the description covers the side effects, the default behavior, and the reconnection model an agent needs. It omits only the return payload and any pending-operation semantics, which is a minor gap given the annotations already flag idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 0% for the single return_local parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By default also return front-panel control' strongly implies the default-true behavior of return_local, but the parameter is never named and the false case (leaving the instrument in remote/controlled mode) is left to inference.

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?

Names a specific action (release the adapter) and its resource, and immediately frames the benefit (so another client can use it) plus what is preserved (RF settings). An agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools like get_status or set_rf, though it never names a sibling explicitly as the alternative.

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?

Gives a clear context for use ('so another client can use it') and explains that a subsequent status/control call transparently reconnects, which is effectively guidance on when not to bother worrying about reconnecting. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or pointing to a sibling tool for related tasks.

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