disconnect_device

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

Annotations declare it is not read-only and not destructive, which is somewhat surprising for a 'disconnect' action; the description resolves this by explaining the disconnect is recoverable (next device tool reconnects) and explicitly scopes the side effect ('does not change the current sweep state'). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two short clauses with zero filler, and the core action ('Release USB') is front-loaded before the recovery caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters the definition is nearly complete. The only gap is a lack of explicit when-to-use routing relative to the many sibling device tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to supplement; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description is needed or missing here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Release USB') and clarifies the mechanism by which the device comes back ('the next device tool reconnects'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_devices or get_device_info, though it never explicitly says what the device is, relying on context.

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 mention that the next device tool reconnects implies the disconnect is temporary and safe to call, which gives an agent usable context. However, it never states when to prefer disconnecting versus simply not using the device, nor names any alternative sibling.

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